title: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 September 2000 in Case C-456/99 P: J v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Place of recruitment — Habitual residence at the time of recruitment — Legal characterisation of the facts found — Manifestly inadmissible appeal)

text:
10.3.2001               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                                C 79/7
Directive 92/83/EEC on the harmonisation of the structures of              The term ‘party concerned’ used in Article 7(5) of Commission
excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages (OJ 1998                  Regulation (EEC) No 2169/86 of 10 July 1986 laying down
L 295, p. 43) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A.                 detailed rules for the control and payment of the production refunds
La Pergola, President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur)             in the cereals and rice sectors, as amended by Commission Regulation
and D.A.O. Edward, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate                (EEC) No 165/89 of 24 January 1989, is to be construed as
General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given           meaning that it does not refer to a purchaser of esterified or etherified
a judgment on 7 December 2000, in which it:                                starch who has undertaken to his supplier to use that product
                                                                           exclusively for the manufacture of products other than those listed in
1.    Dismisses the application;                                           Annex I to that regulation. Such a purchaser cannot therefore have
                                                                           imposed on him the penalty provided for in Article 7(5) of that
2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                        regulation, namely, payment of an amount equal to 105 % of the
                                                                           highest production refund applicable to the product in question
                                                                           during the previous 12-month period.
(1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (First Chamber)                                                       ORDER OF THE COURT
                       of 7 December 2000
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
in Case C-2/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Hessisches Finanzgericht, Kassel): Döhler GmbH v                                              of 27 September 2000
                  Hauptzollamt Darmstadt (1)
                                                                           in Case C-456/99 P: J v Commission of the European
(Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets —                                                   Communities (1)
Production refunds — Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No
2169/86, as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 165/89 —
Esterified or etherified starch — Proper use — Penalties —                 (Officials — Place of recruitment — Habitual residence at
                  Meaning of ‘party concerned’)                            the time of recruitment — Legal characterisation of the facts
                                                                                found — Manifestly inadmissible appeal)
                           (2001/C 79/12)
                                                                                (2001/C 79/13)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                           In Case C-456/99 P: J, an official of the Commission of the
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           European Communities, residing in Brussels, represented by
                                                                           G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, of the Brussels Bar, with an
In Case C-2/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Société de
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Hessisches                     Gestion Fiduciaire, 2-4 Rue Beck — appeal against the
Finanzgericht (Finance Court, Hessen), Kassel, Germany, for a              judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                  Communities (Third Chamber) of 28 September 1999 in Case
court between Döhler GmbH and Hauptzollamt Darmstadt —                     T-28/98 J v Commission (not yet published in the European
on the interpretation of Article 7(5) of Commission Regulation             Court Reports), seeking to have that judgment set aside and to
(EEC) No 2169/86 of 10 July 1986 laying down detailed rules                obtain relief in the form of order sought by the appellant in
for the control and payment of the production refunds in the               the proceedings at first instance, the other party to the
cereals and rice sectors (OJ 1986 L 189, p. 12), as amended by             proceedings being the Commission of the European Communi-
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 165/89 of 24 January 1989                   ties (Agent: J. Currall, assisted by D. Waelbroeck) — the Court
(OJ 1989 L 20, p. 14) — the Court (First Chamber), composed                (Fifth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward, President of the
of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, P. Jann (Rapporteur)            Chamber, L. Sevón, A. La Pergola, P. Jann and M. Wathelet,
and L. Sevón, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General; D. Louter-             Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
man-Hubeau, Head of Division, for the Registrar, has given a               made an order on 27 September 2000, the operative part of
judgment on 7 December 2000, in which it has ruled:                        which is as follows:
 ---pagebreak--- C 79/8                   EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           10.3.2001
1.    The appeal is dismissed.                                                                   ORDER OF THE COURT
2.    J is to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
(1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.                                                                            of 5 October 2000
                                                                            in Case C-182/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                            from the Tribunale di Brescia): Palazzo Piacentini Srl v
                                                                                Amministrazione Finanzaria dello Stato (1)
                                                                            (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Manifestly
                     ORDER OF THE COURT                                                               identical question)
                           (Third Chamber)                                                              (2001/C 79/15)
                         of 5 October 2000
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
in Case C-363/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling by
the Tribunale di Catania): ISFA SpA v Ministero delle
                               Finanze (1)
                                                                            In Case C-182/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                                                                            the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunale di
(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Manifestly                      Brescia (Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
                          identical question)                               pending before that court between Palazzo Piacentini Srl and
                                                                            Amministrazione Finanzaria dello Stato on the interpretation
                                                                            of Community law concerning the recovery of sums paid but
                             (2001/C 79/14)                                 not due — the Court, composed of: J.C. Moitinho de Almeida,
                                                                            President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann and J.-P. Puissochet
                                                                            (Rapporteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate Gen-
                     (Language of the case: Italian)                        eral; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 5 October
                                                                            2000, the operative part of which is as follows:
In Case C-363/96: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Tribunale di Catania              1.    Community law does not prevent a Member State from resisting
(District Court, Catania) (Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the                 actions for repayment of charges levied in breach of Community
proceedings pending before that court between ISFA SpA and                        law by relying on a three-year time-limit under national law
Ministero delle Finanze — on the interpretation of Community                      which derogates from the ordinary rules governing actions for
law concerning the recovery of sums paid but not due — the                        the recovery of sums paid but not due between private
Court (Third Chamber), composed of: J.C. Moitinho de Almei-                       individuals, the latter actions being subject to a more favourable
da, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann and J.-P. Puissochet                     time-limit, provided that the time-limit in question applies in
(Rapporteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate Gen-                       the same way to actions for recovery of such charges which are
eral; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 5 October                         based on Community law as to actions based on domestic law.
2000, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                            2.    In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings,
                                                                                Community law does not prevent a Member State from resisting
In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, Community
law does not prevent a Member State from resisting actions for                    actions for repayment of charges levied in breach of a directive
repayment of charges levied in breach of a directive by relying on a              by relying on a time-limit under national law which is reckoned
                                                                                from the date of payment of the charges in question, even if, at
time-limit under national law which is reckoned from the date of
payment of the charges in question, even if, at that date, the directive          that date, the directive concerned had not yet been properly
concerned had not yet been properly transposed into national law.                 transposed into national law.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 212 of 12.7.1997.
(1) OJ C 9 of 11.1.1997.


title: Case C-99/17 P: Appeal brought on 24 February 2017 by Infineon Technologies AG against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2016 in Case T-758/14: Infineon Technologies AG v European Commission

text:
               29.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 168/20

         Appeal brought on 24 February 2017 by Infineon Technologies AG against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2016 in Case T-758/14: Infineon Technologies AG v European Commission
   (Case C-99/17 P)
   (2017/C 168/27)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Infineon Technologies AG (represented by: M. Klusmann, Rechtsanwalt, T. Lübbig, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The Appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 December 2016, Case T-758/14;

               —

               annul the Decision of the European Commission No. C(2014) 6250 final of 3 September 2014 (Case AT.39574 — Smart Card Chips) in so far as Infineon Technologies AG is concerned;

               —

               in eventu, reduce the fine in the amount of EUR 82 874 000imposed on the Appellant according to paragraph 457 (a) of the Commission’s Decision of 3 September 2014, to a proportionate amount;

               —

               in eventu, refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration;

               —

               order the Defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In essence the Appellant submits that:

               —

               the General Court failed to have regard to its obligation to carry out a sufficient review of the contested Decision, as provided for in Article 263 TFEU, in particular due to the General Court in the present case having adopted an erroneous approach of an incomplete selective judicial review. Despite all of the contacts at issue in the Decision having been contested by the Appellant, the General Court only reviewed less than half of these contacts, without providing sufficient reasoning as to the selection of particular contacts to be reviewed or not to be reviewed and without any legal basis for doing so;

               —

               the Commission and the General Court, respectively, erred in law in respect of the application of Article 101 TFEU, in particular due to the finding of an ‘overall’ restriction of competition by object on the part of the Appellant, mainly through an exchange on general market trends and forecasts on pricing developments. Moreover, the Commission and General Court failed to have regard to the conditions for establishing a single and continuous infringement, as applied by the Court in its case-law;

               —

               the Commission and the General Court, respectively, erred in law in respect of the calculation of the fine imposed on the Appellant. In particular, the General Court failed to consider the effects arising from its own incomplete selective review (with only a few of the contested contacts at issue being verified) and, consequently, failed to have regard to its unlimited jurisdiction with regard to the fine imposed. The General Court moreover erred in — and failed to sufficiently state reasons for — including the non-SIM revenues of the Appellant which led to the fine being excessive and thus disproportionate.
               Further arguments relate to several distortions of evidence by the General Court, an erroneous allocation of the burden of proof regarding potentially unreliable evidence and errors of law relating to evidence used by the Commission against the Appellant which was not disclosed throughout the Commission proceedings.

               —

               In the alternative, the Judgment is vitiated by a breach of the principle of proportionality, in particular in so far as the General Court failed to grant to the Appellant a sufficient fine reduction due to its limited participation in the infringement at issue, an insufficient consideration of mitigating factors and in terms of the absolute amount of the fine imposed on the Appellant being disproportionate.


title: Case F-14/08: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 December 2008 — X v Parliament

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/78

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 December 2008 — X v Parliament
   (Case F-14/08) (1)

   (2009/C 44/141)

      Language of the case: Greek

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

      (1)  OJ C 142, 7.6.2008, p. 39.


               24.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/26

         (2005/C 330/63)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 315, 10.12.2005

   Past publications

      OJ C 296, 26.11.2005

      OJ C 281, 12.11.2005

      OJ C 271, 29.10.2005

      OJ C 257, 15.10.2005

      OJ C 243, 1.10.2005

      OJ C 229, 17.9.2005

   These texts are available on:

               EUR-Lex:http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex

               CELEX:http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Case T-265/04: Action brought on 24 June 2004 by Adriatica di Navigazione S.p.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               25.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/26

         Action brought on 24 June 2004 by Adriatica di Navigazione S.p.A. against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-265/04)
   (2004/C 239/57)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance on 24 June 2004 by Adriatica di Navigazione S.p.A., represented by Gian Michele Roberti, Alessandra Franchi and Guido Bellitti.
   The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:

               annul the contested decision in so far as it considers the subsidies in respect of public-service obligations made to Adriatica to be aid for the purposes of Article 87 of the Treaty and classifies those measures as new aid;

               or annul Article 1(2) of the contested decision;

               or, as a subsidiary claim, annul Article 1(3) of the contested decision in so far as it requires Italy to recover the aid together with interest;

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By this application the company Adriatica di Navigazione S.p.A. challenges, pursuant to the fourth paragraph of Article 230 of the EC Treaty, the decision of the European Commission of 16 March C(2004) 470 concerning State aid granted by Italy to the shipping companies Adriatica, Caremar, Siremar, Saremar and Toremar. In particular, the applicant asks the Court of First Instance to annul the decision under challenge inasmuch as it considers the subsidies in respect of public-service obligations made to Adriatica to be aid for the purposes of Article 87 of the Treaty, and classifies those measures as new aid.
   In support of its action, the applicant puts forward three grounds of challenge.
   By the first, the applicant alleges that the Commission made a twofold error of assessment. First, in its view, the Commission's decision is vitiated because the Commission wrongly classified the subsidies granted by the Italian State to the shipping companies of the Gruppo Tirrenia to offset the costs of their public-service obligations (P-S.Os) as aid for the purposes of Article 87 EC. As a result of this mistaken classification the decision under challenge infringes (a) the sphere of discretion possessed by the authorities of the Member States in connection with the identifying and funding of P-S.Os, and (b) Article 4(3) of Regulation 3577/92 (1). In the second place, Adriatica maintains that in any case the Commission fell into an error of assessment in classifying those subsidies as new aid. In this regard, the applicant points out first of all that the Commission failed to take into consideration that the relevant legislation and the public-service Conventions of the regional companies of the Gruppo Tirrenia had been notified to the Commission and had been authorised by the latter either expressly or by implication.
   By its second plea, the applicant challenges the errors of assessment that it claims the Commission made in its contested decision in finding that the scheme of subsidies for Adriatica between 1992 and 1994 was incompatible [with the common market] because Adriatica was responsible for anti-competitive conduct prohibited by Article 81 EC. On this point, the applicant notes that that assessment is incorrect since the Commission ought first of all to have ascertained whether there was any causal connection between the particular case which constitutes contravention of competition and the case of the aid measures, and to have recognised that there was, in the circumstances, no such causal connection. In addition, the applicant stresses that, for the purposes of ascertaining whether there existed such a connection, the mere coincidence of the subject-matter of the contravention of competition and the abovementioned subsidies was quite irrelevant. Here, the applicant also alleges breach of the obligation to give reasons laid down in Article 253 EC.
   Finally, the applicant's third plea in law claims that the decision under challenge is unlawful inasmuch as it orders that the aid given to Adriatica for the period from January 1992 to July 1994 should be recovered, contrary to the general principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and of the proportionality of administrative action.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage) (OJ 1992 L 364, p. 7).


title: Case C-255/08: Action brought on 13 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/26

         Action brought on 13 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-255/08)
   (2008/C 223/40)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. van Beek and J.-B. Laignelot, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Article 4(2) and (3) in conjunction with Annexes II and III of Council Directive 85/337/EEC (1) of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Directives 97/11/EC (2) and 2003/35/EC (3),

               —

               order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               According to Article 249, third paragraph, EC a directive is binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member State to which it is addressed, but leaves to the national authorities the choice of form and methods.

               2.

               The Member States must also adopt the necessary measures in order to implement directives in national law within the prescribed period and to inform the Commission of those measures.

               3.

               In the present case, Article 3(1) of Directive 97/11/EC provides that the Member States are to bring into force the necessary provisions to comply with the directive by 14 March 1999 at the latest and to notify the Commission forthwith thereof. However, the Netherlands has failed to do so.

               4.

               On the basis of the above the Commission must conclude that the Netherlands has failed to adopt the necessary measures to correctly implement Article 4(2) and (3) in conjunction with Annexes II and III of Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended by Directives 97/11 and 2003/35/EC, in that it has failed to apply all the criteria in Annex III to all projects in Annex II.

      (1)   OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40.

      (2)   OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5.

      (3)  OJ 2003 L 156, p. 17.


title: Case T-517/12: Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2014  — Alro v Commission (State aid — Electricity — Preferential tariffs — Decision to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU — Action for annulment — Act not open to challenge — Aid measure fully implemented, in part, as at the date of the decision and, in part, when the action was brought — Inadmissibility)

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/34

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2014 — Alro v Commission
   (Case T-517/12) (1)

   ((State aid - Electricity - Preferential tariffs - Decision to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU - Action for annulment - Act not open to challenge - Aid measure fully implemented, in part, as at the date of the decision and, in part, when the action was brought - Inadmissibility))
   2014/C 421/46
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Alro SA (Slatina, Romania) (represented by: C. Quigley QC, O. Bretz, Solicitor, and S. Verschuur, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier and T. Maxian Rusche, Agents)

      Re:

   Application, principally, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2012) 2517 final of 25 April 2012 to initiate the formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU into State aid SA 33624 (2012/C) (2011/NN) — Romania — Preferential electricity tariffs granted to Alro Slatina SA and, in the alternative, for annulment of Decision C(2012) 2517 final in so far as it applies to the period from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2009.

      Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

               2)

               Orders Alro SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 32, 2. 2. 2013.


title: Case T-71/05: Action brought on 14 February 2005 by Jacques Wunenburger against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               30.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/35

         Action brought on 14 February 2005 by Jacques Wunenburger against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-71/05)
   (2005/C 106/72)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 14 February 2005 by Jacques Wunenburger, residing in Zagreb (Croatia), represented by Eric Boigelot, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               annul the draft staff report for the period from 1 July 1997 to 30 June 1999, transmitted to the applicant on 22 March 2002;

               2.

               annul the draft staff report for the period from 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2001, transmitted to the applicant on 22 March 2002;

               3.

               award compensation for non-pecuniary damage resulting from the absence of staff reports in the applicant's personal file for the reporting periods 1997-1999 and 1999-2001 and the effect on his career, that damage being assessed on an equitable basis at EUR 9 996, subject to any increase during the proceedings;

               4.

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant asserts that since the reporting period 1997-1999 he has been unable to obtain final staff reports.
   He observes in this respect that it is settled case-law that a staff report may not be annulled solely on the ground that it has been drawn up late, unless exceptional circumstances are present; such circumstances could be constituted by a delay in drawing up the reports that is so great that the reporters can no longer remember the work done. That is the case with the draft staff reports at issue.
   In support of his application, the applicant submits:

               —

               Infringement of the second paragraph of Article 225 and Articles 26 and 43 of the Staff Regulations, and of the general implementing provisions relating to the application of Article 43 of those regulations, concerning the procedure for drawing up staff reports;

               —

               Abuse of powers in the present case;

               —

               Disregard of certain general principles of law, such as respect for the rights of the defence, the principle of sound administration, the protection of legitimate expectations, compliance with the duty to have care, the principle of equal treatment, and the principles which require the appointing authority to take decisions only on the basis of legally admissible grounds, that is, grounds which are relevant and not vitiated by manifest errors of assessment of the facts or the law.


title: Case T-226/12: Order of the General Court of 27 February 2014 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM — Lídl Music (LIDL) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark LIDL — Earlier national figurative mark LÍDL MUSIC — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 15(1) and Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               7.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/34

         Order of the General Court of 27 February 2014 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM — Lídl Music (LIDL)
   (Case T-226/12) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark LIDL - Earlier national figurative mark LÍDL MUSIC - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 15(1) and Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   2014/C 102/54
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: initially by M. Schaeffer, M. Wolter and A. Marx, and subsequently by M. Wolter, A. Marx and M. Kefferpütz, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Lídl Music spol. s r.o. (Brno, Czech Republic)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 March 2012 (Case R 2380/2010-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Lídl Music spol. s r.o. and Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG.

      Operative part of the order

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 227, 28.7.2017.


title: Case C-420/07: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 28 April 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom)) — Meletis Apostolides v David Charles Orams, Linda Elizabeth Orams (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protocol No 10 on Cyprus — Suspension of the application of the — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Judgment given by a Cypriot court sitting in the area effectively controlled by the Cypriot Government and concerning immovable property situated outside that area — Articles 22(1), 34(1) and (2), 35(1) and 38(1) of that regulation)

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/7

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 28 April 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom)) — Meletis Apostolides v David Charles Orams, Linda Elizabeth Orams
   (Case C-420/07) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protocol No 10 on Cyprus - Suspension of the application of the - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Judgment given by a Cypriot court sitting in the area effectively controlled by the Cypriot Government and concerning immovable property situated outside that area - Articles 22(1), 34(1) and (2), 35(1) and 38(1) of that regulation)
   2009/C 153/13
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Meletis Apostolides

      Defendants: David Charles Orams, Linda Elizabeth Orams

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — Interpretation of Article 10(1) of Protocol No 10 to the Act of Accession of Cyprus and of Articles 22, 34(1) and (2) and 35(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Suspension of the application of the acquis communautaire in those areas in which the Government does not exercise effective control — Recognition and enforcement by the court of another Member State of a decision given by a Cypriot court sitting in the area of effective control and relating to land situated outside that area

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The suspension of the application of the acquis communautaire in those areas of the Republic of Cyprus in which the Government of that Member State does not exercise effective control, provided for by Article 1(1) of Protocol No 10 on Cyprus to the Act concerning the conditions of accession [to the European Union] of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, does not preclude the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters to a judgment which is given by a Cypriot court sitting in the area of the island effectively controlled by the Cypriot Government, but concerns land situated in areas not so controlled.

               2.

               Article 35(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 does not authorise the court of a Member State to refuse recognition or enforcement of a judgment given by the courts of another Member State concerning land situated in an area of the latter State over which its Government does not exercise effective control.

               3.

               The fact that a judgment given by the courts of a Member State, concerning land situated in an area of that State over which its Government does not exercise effective control, cannot, as a practical matter, be enforced where the land is situated does not constitute a ground for refusal of recognition or enforcement under Article 34(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 and it does not mean that such a judgment is unenforceable for the purposes of Article 38(1) of that regulation.

               4.

               The recognition or enforcement of a default judgment cannot be refused under Article 34(2) of Regulation No 44/2001 where the defendant was able to commence proceedings to challenge the default judgment and those proceedings enabled him to argue that he had not been served with the document which instituted the proceedings or with the equivalent document in sufficient time and in such a way as to enable him to arrange for his defence.

      (1)  OJ C 297, 8.12.2007.


title: Case F-120/10: Action brought on 15 November 2010 — AR v Commission

text:
               5.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/35

         Action brought on 15 November 2010 — AR v Commission
   (Case F-120/10)
   2011/C 72/57
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: AR (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodriguez, C. Bernard-Glanz and A. Blot, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of EPSO’s decision not to admit the applicant to the procedure for internal competition COM/INT/EU2/10/AD5 for administrators with Bulgarian or Romanian citizenship on account of the fact that the applicant failed the admission tests and of the decision on the complaint authorising the applicant to re-sit the admission tests for the competition in question.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) of 31 March 2010 not to admit the applicant to internal competition COM/INT/EU2/10/AD5, so as to enable the applicant to sit the tests;

               —

               annul the decision adopted on 3 August 2010 by the appointing authority in that it did not uphold in its entirety the applicant’s complaint;

               —

               request the Commission, if necessary be means of a measure of inquiry or measure of organisation of procedure, to produce the list of questions asked and answers given at the tests held at 13.00 on 5 March 2010 in Brussels.

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case F-83/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 April 2014  — Lecolier v Commission

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/64

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 April 2014 — Lecolier v Commission
   (Case F-83/13) (1)

   2014/C 421/96
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 344, 23.11.2013, p. 69.


title: Case T-259/12: Action brought on 11 June 2012 — Alban Giacomo v Commission

text:
               28.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 227/33

         Action brought on 11 June 2012 — Alban Giacomo v Commission
   (Case T-259/12)
   2012/C 227/55
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Alban Giacomo SpA (Romano d’Ezzelino, Italy) (represented by: S. Nanni Costa, F. Di Gianni, G. Coppo, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul or, in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the applicant, if necessary by having recourse to the unlimited jurisdiction conferred on the Court by Article 261 TFEU;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The decision contested in the present proceedings is the same as that in Case T-248/12 Carl Fuhr GmbH & C. KG v Commission.
   The applicant relies on two pleas in law in support of its action.

               1.

               First plea, alleging that the determination of the duration of the infringement ascribed to Alban Giacomo SpA was unlawful.

                           —

                           By the first plea, the applicant submits that the infringement established in its case ended at the time of the last meeting at which it particpated, namely on 11 September 2006, and not at the time of the inspections carried out by the Commission on 3 July 2007.

                           —

                           The applicant puts forward the following arguments in support of this plea: (i) it has not been established that during the meeting held on 11 September 2006 the applicant concluded an agreement on price increases for 2007; (ii) it has not been established that the applicant implemented the purported agreement concerning price increases for 2007; (iii) it has not been established that the applicant remained in contact with competitors after the meeting of 11 September 2006.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the fine imposed on Alban Giacomo SpA is unlawful, in so far as it is contrary to the principle that penalties must be specific to the offender and to the offence and the principles of non-discrimination, equal treatment and proportionality.

                           —

                           By the second plea, the applicant claims that the Commission failed correctly to ensure that the fine imposed on it was commensurate with its degree of responsibilty vis-à-vis that of the other undertakings participating in the cartel, in breach of the fundametal princples of proportionality and equal treatment and the principle that penalties must be specific to the offender and to the offence.

                           —

                           The applicant puts forward the following arguments in support of this plea: (i) the percentage of sales used for the purpose of calculating the fine is excessive; (ii) in the alternative, the refusal to grant the applicant the benefit of an attenuating circumstance is unjustified; (iii) in the further alternative, the Commission should have further reduced the fine imposed on the applicant.


title: Case T-325/09 P: Appeal brought on 17 August 2009 by Vahan Adjemian and Others against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 4 June 2009 in Joined Cases F-134/07 Adjemian and Others v Commission and F-8/08 Renier v Commission

text:
               24.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/30

         Appeal brought on 17 August 2009 by Vahan Adjemian and Others against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 4 June 2009 in Joined Cases F-134/07 Adjemian and Others v Commission and F-8/08 Renier v Commission
   (Case T-325/09 P)
   2009/C 256/55
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellants: Vahan Adjemian (Angera, Italy), Matteo Ambietti (Gallarate, Italy), Elisabetta Avanti (Vedano Olona, Italy), Daniela Baiguera (Cadrezzate, Italy), Douglas James Beare (Azzale, Italy), Valentina Benzi (Varese, Italy), Maria Nicoletta Berta (Buguggiate, Italy), Conrad Bielsky (Ispra, Italy), Maria Bielza Diaz-Caneja (Ispra), Roberta Bino (Ispra), Kristin Boettcher (Ranco, Italy), Valeria Boschini (Taino, Italy), Mounir Bouhifd (Arolo di Leggiuno, Italy), Cristina Brovelli (Ispra), Daniela Brovelli (Ranco), Clementine Burnley (Taino), Daniela Buzica (Ispra), Giovanni Calderone (Leggiuno, Italy), Marco Canonico (Refrancore, Italy), Stefano Casalegno (Angera), Javier Castro Jimenez (Ispra), Denise Cecconello (Cocquio Trevisago, Italy), Francesca Cellina (Varese), Francesca Cenci (Travedona Monate, Italy), Laura Ceriotti (Dairago, Italy), Houtai Choumane (Laveno), Graziella Cimino Reale (Guidonia Monticelio, Italy), Marco Clerici (Legnano, Italy), Bruno Combal (Besozzo, Italy), Costanza Giulia Conte (Ispra), Tatiana Conti (Vedano Olona), Domenica Cortellini (Brebbia, Italy), Orna Cosgrove (Varese), Giulio Cotogno (Rovellesca, Italy), Cristina Croera (Taino), Ana Maria Cruz Naranjo (Cardana di Besozzo, Italy), Barbara Cuniberti (Angera), Bianca D’Alimonte (Sesto Calende, Italy), Miranta Dandoulaki (Athens, Greece), Alexander De Meij (Leggiuno), Wim Decoen (Brebbia), Christiane Deflandre (Travedona Monate), Riccardo Del Torchio (Gemonio, Italy), Elena Demicheli (Sesto Calende), Manuela Di Lorenzo (Sangiano, Italy), Stefano Donadello (Arsago Seprio, Italy), Anna Donato (Taino), Bruno Duarte De Matos E Sousa Pereira (Ispra), Sami Dufva (Biandronno, Italy), Wesley Duke (Gavirate, Italy), Diego Escudero Rodrigo (Taino), Claudio Forti (Malgesso, Italy), Monica Gandini (Buguggiate), Aliki Georgakaki (Alkmaar, Netherlands), Giovanni Giacomelli (Laveno), Alessandra Giallombardo (Gavirate), Nadia Giboni (Brebbia), Maria Giovanna Giordanelli (Vergiate, Italy), Maria Giuseppina Grillo (Sangiano), Manuela Grossi (Ranco), Laurence Guy-Mikkelsen (Angera), Rachel Margaret Harvey-Kelly (Cardana di Besozzo), Paul Hasenohr (Arolo di Leggiuno), Ulla Marjaana Helminen (Laveno), Gea Huykman (Db Anna Paulowna, Netherlands), Elisabeth Marie Cecile Joossens (Biandronno), Lyudmila Kamburska (Ranco), Maria Cristina La Fortezza (Arsago Seprio), Debora Lacchin (Brebbia), Rafal Leszczyna (Varese), Amin Lievens (Taino), Silvia Loffelholz (Gavirate), Davide Lorenzini (Varese), Chiara Macchi (Casalzuigno, Italy), Andrew John Edgar MacLean (Varese), Andrea Magistri (Ispra), Alessia Maineri (Varese), Simone Malfara (Ispra), Adriana Marino (Taino), Patrizia Masoin (Brussels, Belgium), Matteo Mazzuccato (Legnano), Stefania Minervino (Cittiglio, Italy), Eduardo Luis Montes Torralbo (Ispra), Davide Moraschi (Seville, Spain), Claudio Moroni (Besozzo), Giovanni Narciso (Ispra), Andrew Darren Nelson (Angera), Elisa Nerboni (Angera), Isabella Claudia Neugebauer (Arolo di Leggiuno), Francesca Nicoli (Laveno), Victor Alexander Nievaart (Am Alkmaar), Magdalena Novackova (Am Alkmaar), Joanna Nowak (Ispra), Victoria Wendy O’Brien (Angera), Davide Orto (Gallarate), Alessio Ossola (Brebbia), Silvia Parnisari (Arona, Italy), Manuela Pavan (San Felice, Italy), Immaculada Pizzaro Moreno (Seville, Spain), Marina Pongillupi (Ranco), Marsia Pozzato (Sesto Calende), Elisa Pozzi (Taino), Giovanna Primavera (Angera), Michele Rinaldin (Sesto Calende), Alice Ripoli (Gavirate), Emanuela Rizzardi (Laveno), Michela Rossi (Taino), Andrew Rowlands (Bodio, Italy), Helen Salak (Cocquio Trevisago), Jaime Sales Saborit (Ispra), Maria Sonia Salina (Vergiate), Anne Marie Sanchez Cordeil (Besozzo), Ferruccio Scaglia (Oleggio, Italy), Niels Schulze (Sesto Calende), Francesca Serra (Cadrezzate), Penka Shegunova (Geel, Belgium), Donatella Soma (Ispra), Monica Squizzato (Inarco, Italy), Alan Steel (Laveno), Robert Oleij Strobl (Ranco), Marcel Suri (Brebbia), Malcolm John Taberner (Monvalle, Italy), Martina Telo, (Vicenza, Italy), Saara Tetri (Cittiglio), Barbara Claire Thomas (Cocquio Trevisago), Donatella Turetta (Ranco), Adamo Uboldi (Cardana di Besozzo), Monica Vaglica (Osmate, Italy), Paulo Valente De Jesus Rosa (Travedona Monat), Corinna Valli, (Leggiuno), Federica Vanetti (Cittiglio), Christophe Vantongelen (Besozzo), Irene Vernacotola (Legnano), Ottaviano Veronese (Segrate, Italy), Patricia Vieira Lisboa (Angera, Italy), Maria Pilar Vizcaino Martinez, (Monvalle), Giulia Zerauschek (Trieste, Italy), Marco Zucchelli (Ternate, Italy), Erika Adorno (Travedona Monate), Valeria Bossi (Comerio, Italy), Barbara Cattaneo (Leggiuno), Claudia Cavicchioli (Caravate, Italy), Fatima Doukkali (Varese), Orla Huryley (Ranco), Romina La Micela (Besozzo), Lucia Martinez Simon (Ranco), Daniela Piga (Roggiano, Italy), Pamela Porcu (Cittiglio), Silvia Sciacca (Varese), Sarah Solda (Brebbia), Cristina Zocchi (Bregano, Italy), Angela Baranzini (Besozzo), Elly Bylemans (Balen, Italy), Sabrina Calderini (Solbiate Arno, Italy), Davide Capuzzo (Vergiate), Ivano Caravaggi (Besozzo), Elisa Dalle Molle (Ranst, Belgium), Wendy De Vos (Groot-Bijgaarden, Belgium), Volkmar Ernst (Weingarten, Germany), Matteo Fama (Sangiano, Italy), Arianna Farfaletti Casali (Varese), Sasa Gligorijevic (Monvalle), Raffaella Magi Galluzzi (Varese), Sophie Mühlberger (Karlsruhe, Germany), Pamela Muscillo (Varese), Jan Paepen (Balen), Marco Paviotti (Bagnaria Arsa, Italy), Slavka Prvakova (Eg Alkmaar, Netherlands), Andreas Ratzel (Linkenheim, Germany), Thierry Romero (Strasbourg, France), Jose Pablo Solans Vila (Monvalle), Susan Wray (TM Tutjenhoin, Netherlands), Sven Wurzer (Linkenheim), Sylvia Zamana (RZ Castricum, Netherlands), Uwe Zweigner (Leopoldshafen, Germany), Colette Renier (Brussels) (represented by S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities and Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought by the appellants

               —

               Set aside the judgment of 4 June 2009 in Joined Cases F-134/07 Adjemian and Others v Commission, supported by the Council of the European Union and F-8/08 Renier v Commission, supported by the Council of the European Union;

               —

               Giving judgment itself, having declared the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 28 April 2004 concerning the maximum duration of the recourse to non-permanent staff in its services to be unlawful, and Article 88 of the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the European Communities to be inapplicable in so far as it limits the duration of the contracts of auxiliary contract staff,

                           —

                           annul the Commission’s decisions of 23 August and 31 October 2007 rejecting complaints R/263/07 and R/492/07 brought against the decisions of the Commission to renew the engagement of the appellants as contract staff only for a fixed period;

                           —

                           annul the decision of 31 October 2007 rejecting complaint R/390/07 brought against the decisions of the Commission to conclude a contract or to renew the engagement of the appellants (Adorno and others — appellants’ list No 2) as contract staff only for a fixed period;

                           —

                           annul the Commission’s decision of 5 September 2007 rejecting the appellants’ applications of 31 May and 20 July 2007 for an extension for an indefinite period of the appellants’ contracts as members of the contract staff;

                           —

                           annul the Commission’s decision of 28 November 2007 rejecting the complaint brought against the decision of 5 September 2007 rejecting the appellants’ applications of 31 May and 20 July 2007 for an extension for an indefinite period of their contracts as members of the contract staff;

                           —

                           annul the Commission’s decisions laying down the respective conditions of the appellants’ employment in so far as their engagement or the extension thereof is limited to a fixed period;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and of the appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By their appeal, the appellants ask the Court to set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) delivered on 4 June 2009 in Joined Cases F-134/07 Adjemian and Others v Commission and F-8/08 Renier v Commission dismissing the applications by which the appellants had sought the annulment of the Commission’s decisions — and the rejection of their complaints in that regard — to renew their contracts as members of the contract staff only for a fixed period rather than for an indefinite period.
   In support of their appeal, the appellants put forward a number of grounds of appeal alleging:

               —

               that the Tribunal erred in law in deciding that Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (1) could not sustain a plea of illegality in respect of a provision of the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the European Communities (‘Conditions of Employment’);

               —

               that the Tribunal erred in law in deciding that the framework agreement on fixed-term work — intended to establish a framework to prevent abuse arising from the use of successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships — could not sustain pleas of illegality in respect of Article 88 of the Conditions of Employment and the Commission’s decision of 28 April 2004 concerning the maximum duration of the recourse to non-permanent staff in the Commission’s services, and in deciding that the reasons given for Article 88 of the Conditions of Employment were sufficient;

               —

               that the Tribunal erred in law and in fact in assessing the appellants’ situation as against the Commission’s obligation to observe the minimum requirements applicable at Community level arising from the framework agreement on fixed-term work and Article 10 EC;

               —

               that, having defined the scope of the duty to act in good faith and of the principles of cooperation in good faith and consistency required to be observed by the Commission, the Tribunal failed to draw the appropriate conclusions from their infringement in the present case;

               —

               that the Tribunal erred in law in deciding that the decisions at issue were sufficiently reasoned notwithstanding the fact that, according to the appellants, the decisions contain only formal statements of reasons and do not provide information enabling the appellants to assess their merits or the Community judicature to carry out a judicial review.

      (1)  OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43.


title: Case C-67/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo per la Sardegna (Italy) lodged on 12 February 2015 — Mario Melis and Others v Comune di Loiri Porto San Paolo, Provincia di Olbia Tempio

text:
               4.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 146/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo per la Sardegna (Italy) lodged on 12 February 2015 — Mario Melis and Others v Comune di Loiri Porto San Paolo, Provincia di Olbia Tempio
   (Case C-67/15)
   (2015/C 146/23)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo per la Sardegna

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Mario Melis, Tavolara Beach Sas, Dionigi Piredda, Claudio Del Giudice for Sib Gallura

      Defendants: Comune di Loiri Porto San Paolo, Provincia di Olbia Tempio

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do the principles of freedom of establishment, non-discrimination and safeguarding competition, as laid down, respectively, in Articles 49 TFEU, 56 TFEU and 106 TFEU, preclude national legislation under which the period of validity of concessions of economically significant State-owned maritime property is repeatedly extended through a succession of legislative acts?

               2.

               Does Article 12 of Directive 2006/123 (1) preclude a national provision, such as Article 1(18) of Decree Law No 194 of 30 December 2009, converted into law by Law No 25 of 26 February 2010, as amended and supplemented, which permits the automatic extension of existing concessions of State-owned maritime property for tourist and leisure-oriented business activities to 31 December 2015, or to 31 December 2020, pursuant to Article 34k of Decree Law No 179 of 18 October 2012, inserted by Article 1(1) of Law No 221 of 17 December 2012 converting the aforesaid decree law into law?

      (1)  Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36).


               24.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/4

         Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur dated 17 December 2013 in the case of Sævar Jón Gunnarsson v Landsbankinn hf.
   (Case E-27/13)
   (2014/C 121/04)
   A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 17 December 2013 from Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavík District Court), which was received at the Court’s Registry on 17 December 2013, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Sævar Jón Gunnarsson v Landsbankinn hf., on the following questions:

               1.

               Is it compatible with the provisions of Council Directive 87/102/EEC on consumer credit, as amended by Directive 90/88/EEC and Directive 98/7/EC, that when a credit agreement is made, which is linked to the consumer price index in accordance with an authorisation in enacted legislation, and the sum loaned therefore changes in accordance with inflation, the calculation of the total cost of the credit, and of the annual percentage rate of charge, which is shown to the consumer when the agreement is made, is based on 0 % inflation, and not on the known rate of inflation on the date when the loan is taken?

               2.

               Is it compatible with the provisions of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts if the legislation in an EEA State permits the inclusion of provisions in a consumer contract, stating that repayments of the loan are to be linked to a predetermined index?

               3.

               If the answer to the second question is that the index-linking of repayments of consumer loans is compatible with the provisions of Directive 93/13/EEC, then the third question is: Does the Directive limit the latitude of the EEA State in question to determine, through legislation or by means of administrative regulations, the factors that are to cause changes in the predetermined index and the methods by which these changes are to be measured?

               4.

               If the answer to the third question is that Directive 93/13/EEC does not restrict the latitude of the Member State referred to in that question, then the fourth question is: Is a contractual term regarded as having been individually negotiated within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the Directive when (a) it is stated in the bond which the consumer signs when taking the loan that his obligation is index-linked and the base index to be used when calculating price-changes is specified in the bond, (b) the bond is accompanied by a repayment schedule showing estimated and itemised repayments to be made on the due dates of the loan, and it is stated in the schedule that these estimates may change in accordance with the indexation provision of the bond, and (c) both the consumer and the grantor of credit sign the repayment schedule at the same time and in conjunction with the signature of the bond by the consumer?

               5.

               Is the method of calculation of price changes applying to a loan contract regarded as having been explicitly explained to the consumer within the meaning of paragraph 2(d) of the Annex to Directive 93/13/EEC when the circumstances are as described in the fourth question?

               6.

               Does a State that is party to the EEA Agreement have the option, when adopting Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC, of either prescribing in domestic legislation that unfair contract terms within the meaning of Article 6(1) of the Directive may be declared non-binding on the consumer or prescribing in domestic legislation that such terms shall at all times be non-binding on the consumer?


title: Case T-71/13: Judgment of the General Court of 6 March 2014 — Anapurna v OHIM — Annapurna (ANNAPURNA) (Community trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Community word mark ANNAPURNA — Application for annulment filed by the intervener — Article 134(1) to (3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — Genuine use of the trade mark — Article 15(1)(a) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Form of use of the trade mark — Proof of use for the registered goods)

text:
               14.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/31

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 March 2014 — Anapurna v OHIM — Annapurna (ANNAPURNA)
   (Case T-71/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Community word mark ANNAPURNA - Application for annulment filed by the intervener - Article 134(1) to (3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court - Genuine use of the trade mark - Article 15(1)(a) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Form of use of the trade mark - Proof of use for the registered goods))
   2014/C 112/40
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Anapurna GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: P. Ehrlinger and T. Hagen, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Annapurna SpA (Prato, Italy) (represented by: S. Verea, K. Muraro and M. Balestriero, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 December 2012 (Case R 2409/2011 5), relating to revocation proceedings between Anapurna GmbH and Annapurna SpA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Rejects Annapurna SpA’s application for annulment;

               3.

               Orders Anapurna GmbH to pay the costs, with the exception of those incurred by Annapurna SpA;

               4.

               Orders Annapurna SpA to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 101, 6.4.2013.


title: Case T-52/09: Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2011 — Nycomed Danmark v EMA (Medicinal products for human use — Authorisation to place a medicinal product on the market — Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 — Application for a waiver from the obligation to submit a paediatric investigation plan — Rejection by the EMA — Misuse of powers)

text:
               4.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2011 — Nycomed Danmark v EMA
   (Case T-52/09) (1)

   (Medicinal products for human use - Authorisation to place a medicinal product on the market - Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 - Application for a waiver from the obligation to submit a paediatric investigation plan - Rejection by the EMA - Misuse of powers)
   2012/C 32/35
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Nycomed Denmark ApS (Roskilde, Denmark) (represented: initially by C. Schoonderbeek and H. Speyart van Woerden, lawyers, and subsequently by C. Schoonderbeek)

      Defendant: European Medicines Agency (EMA) (represented by: V. Salvatore and N. Rampal Olmedo, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by L. Inez Fernandes and P. Antunes, Agents); Kingdom of Belgium, (represented by T. Materne and C. Pochet, Agents); United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by S. Ossowski and H. Walker, Agents, and by J. Stratford, Barrister); French Republic (represented by G. de Bergues, A. Adam, R. Loosli Surrans and J.-S. Pilczer, Agents); and European Commission (represented by P. Oliver and M. Šimerdová, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) of 28 November 2008 rejecting the applicant’s application for a specific waiver with respect to perflubutane in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, as amended.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Nycomed Danmark ApS to bear its own costs and those of the European Medicines Agency (EMA), including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures;

               3.

               Orders the Portuguese Republic, the Kingdom of Belgium, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the French Republic and the European Commission to bear their own costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 4.4.2009.


title: Case T-404/07: Action brought on 8 November 2007 — Ryanair v Commission

text:
               12.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 8/20

         Action brought on 8 November 2007 — Ryanair v Commission
   (Case T-404/07)
   (2008/C 8/36)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Ryanair Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare in accordance with Article 232 EC that the Commission has failed to act pursuant to its obligations under the EC Treaty by not having defined a position with respect to the applicant's complaint lodged with the Commission on 8 May 2006 followed by a letter of formal notice of 31 July 2007;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the entire costs, including the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings even if, following the bringing of the action, the Commission takes action which in the opinion of the Court removes the need to give a decision or if the Court dismisses the application as inadmissible; and

               —

               take such further action as the Court may deem appropriate.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant claims that the Commission has failed to act by not having defined its position, after having been invited to do so under Article 232 EC, on the applicant's complaint lodged with the Commission on 8 May 2006 regarding i) unlawful state aid allegedly granted to Air France by France in form of differentiated airport charges charged by the French airports depending on the destination of the flights, or ii) in the alternative, anti-competitive discrimination in violation of Article 82 EC in favour of Air France, should the French airports be considered to have acted autonomously.
   In support of its application, the applicant submits that the Commission was under an obligation to conduct a diligent and impartial examination of the complaint received in order to:

               —

               adopt a decision either declaring that the measures in question did not amount to state aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC, or declaring that the measures were to be considered state aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC, but compatible with the common market under Article 87(2) and (3) EC, or

               —

               to initiate a procedure under Article 88(2) EC.

         In the alternative, the applicant submits that the Commission was required, upon receipt of the applicant's subsidiary complaint that competition law had been infringed, either to initiate a procedure regarding the subject of the complaint or to adopt a definitive decision rejecting the complaint, after having given the applicant the opportunity to comment.
   The applicant further alleges that under the circumstances and in view of the Commission's familiarity with the issues involved, the period of fourteen months between the applicant's complaint and its letter of formal notice was unreasonably long, and the inaction of the Commission during that period constitutes failure to act within the meaning of Article 232 EC.
   Finally, the applicant contends that Article 232 EC entitles an undertaking to bring an action against the Commission's failure to adopt measures which would have been of direct and individual concern to it, and that the measures which the Commission failed to adopt in the present case were of direct and individual concern to the applicant as a competitor of Air France.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 November 2001 in Case C-338/98: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Articles 17(2)(a) and 18(1)(a) of the Sixth VAT Directive — National legislation allowing an employer to deduct, as input tax, a certain percentage of an allowance paid to an employee for business use of a private vehicle)

text:
5.1.2002                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                               C 3/3
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     2.    Orders the French Republic and the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities to bear their own costs;
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                   3.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.
                       of 13 November 2001                                  (1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.
in Case C-277/98: French Republic v Commission of the
                    European Communities (1)
(EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1994 — Supplemen-
tary levy on milk — Disputes between those liable to the levy                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
and the competent national authorities — Proceedings before
national courts — Negative corrections applied to Member
       States for supplementary levies not yet recovered)                                             (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 8 November 2001
                            (2002/C 3/03)
                                                                            in Case C-338/98: Commission of the European Communi-
                     (Language of the case: French)                                     ties v Kingdom of the Netherlands (1)
                                                                            (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      Articles 17(2)(a) and 18(1)(a) of the Sixth VAT Directive
                    in the European Court Reports)                          — National legislation allowing an employer to deduct, as
                                                                            input tax, a certain percentage of an allowance paid to an
                                                                                employee for business use of a private vehicle)
                                                                                (2002/C 3/04)
In Case C-277/98: French Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger
and C. Vasak), supported by Kingdom of Spain (Agent: S. Ortiz
Vaamonde) v Commission of the European Communities                                              (Language of the case: Dutch)
(Agent: G. Berscheid) — application for partial annulment of
Commission Decision 98/358/EC of 6 May 1998 on the
clearance of the accounts presented by the Member States in                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
respect of the expenditure for 1994 of the Guarantee Section                                   in the European Court Reports)
of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
(OJ 1998 L 163, p. 28), in so far as it applies to the
French Republic ‘negative corrections’ for sums in respect of
supplementary levies the recovery of which was being disputed
                                                                            In Case C-338/98: Commission of the European Communities
in proceedings pending before national courts at the date of
                                                                            (Agents: initially E. Mennens and E. Traversa, subsequently
that decision — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
                                                                            E. Traversa and H.M.H. Speyart) v Kingdom of the Netherlands
N. Colneric (Rapporteur), President of the Second Chamber,
                                                                            (Agent: M.A. Fierstra, C. Wissels and J. van Bakel), supported
acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber, C. Gulmann,
                                                                            by United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
R. Schintgen, V. Skouris and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges;
                                                                            (Agent: M. Ewing, assisted by N. Pleming) — application for a
S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
                                                                            declaration that by providing, in breach of Articles 17(2)(a)
judgment on 13 November 2001, in which it:
                                                                            and 18(1)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May
                                                                            1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States
                                                                            relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added
1.    Annuls Commission Decision 98/358/EC of 6 May 1998 on                 tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), in the
      the clearance of the accounts presented by the Member States in       version resulting from Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April
      respect of the expenditure for 1994 of the Guarantee Section of       1995 amending Directive 77/388 and introducing new simpli-
      the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund                 fication measures with regard to value added tax — scope of
      (EAGGF) in so far as it applies to the French Republic ‘negative      certain exemptions and practical arrangements for
      corrections’ for sums in respect of supplementary levies the          implementing them (OJ 1995 L 102, p. 18), that an employer
      recovery of which was being disputed in proceedings pending           who is a taxable person for the purposes of value added tax
      before national courts at the date of that decision;                  may deduct part of an allowance paid to an employee for
 ---pagebreak--- C 3/4                     EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           5.1.2002
business use of a private car, the Kingdom of the Netherlands                Republic (Agents: P. Mylonopoulos and N. Dafniou) —
has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty — the               application for a declaration that, by establishing and main-
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: S. von Bahr, President of                taining a system for stocks of petroleum products which
the Fourth Chamber, acting for the President of the Fifth                    directly links the facility to transfer the storage obligation to
Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur),                          refineries established in Greece to an obligation to obtain
M. Wathelet and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl,                    supplies of petroleum products from those refineries, and by
Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the                prohibiting service stations from obtaining supplies from
Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 November 2001, in                       refineries or from another Member State, the Hellenic Republic
which it:                                                                    has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 30 of the EC
                                                                             Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC) — the Court
1.    Declares that by providing, in breach of Articles 17(2)(a) and         (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the
      18(1)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May               Chamber, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola, L. Sevón
      1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States             and M. Wathelet, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate
      relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added              General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
      tax: uniform basis of assessment, in the version resulting from        a judgment on 25 October 2001, in which it rules:
      Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995 amending
      Directive 77/388 and introducing new simplification measures           1.    By establishing and maintaining a system for the compulsory
      with regard to value added tax — scope of certain exemptions                 maintenance of emergency stocks of petroleum products which
      and practical arrangements for implementing them, that an                    directly links the facility for companies which market those
      employer who is a taxable person, for the purposes of value                  products to transfer their storage obligation to refineries
      added tax may deduct part of an allowance paid to an employee                established in Greece to an obligation to obtain their supplies
      for business use of a private car, the Kingdom of the Netherlands            of those products from those refineries, the Hellenic Republic
      has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty;                    has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 30 of the EC
                                                                                Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC).
2.    Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs;
                                                                             2.    The Hellenic Republic is ordered to pay the costs.
3.    Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
      Ireland to bear its own costs.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 397 of 19.12.1998.
(1) OJ C 340 of 7.11.1998.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
                            (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 13 November 2001
                         of 25 October 2001
                                                                             in Case C-59/99: Commission of the European Communi-
in Case C-398/98: Commission of the European Communi-                        ties v Manuel Pereira Roldão & Filhos Ld.a, Instituto
                    ties v Hellenic Republic (1)                             Superior Técnico and King, Taudevin & Gregson (Hold-
                                                                                ings) Ltd (1)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article                   (Arbitration clause — Reimbursement of advance payments
28 EC) — Obligation to maintain minimum stocks of                            made under a contract terminated by the Commission for
                         petroleum products)                                                           non-performance)
                              (2002/C 3/05)                                                               (2002/C 3/06)
                     (Language of the case: Greek)                                             (Language of the case: Portuguese)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                                               in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-398/98: Commission of the European Communities                     In Case C-59/99: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: D. Triantafyllou and O. Couvert-Castéra) v Hellenic                 (Agents: initially F. de Sousa Fialho and O. Couvert-Castéra,


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 10 July 1997 in Case T-81/96: Christos Apostolidis and Others v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Remuneration - Weighting - Measures taken to comply with a judgment ordering annulment - Article 176 of the EC Treaty - Fair compensation - Legal interest in bringing proceedings - Article 44 (1) (c) of the Rules of Procedure)

text:
No C 252/30          EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 16 . 8 . 97
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                          2 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                       of 10 July 1997
                                                                   (') OJ No C 233 , 10 . 8 . 1996 .
in Case T-81/96: Christos Apostolidis and Others v.
       Commission of the European Communities (')
(Officials — Remuneration — Weighting — Measures
taken to comply with a judgment ordering annulment —
Article 176 of the EC Treaty — Fair compensation —                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Legal interest in bringing proceedings — Article 44 (1) (c)
                 of the Rules of Procedure)                                                  of 11 July 1997
                                                                   in Case T-267/94: Oleifici Italiani SpA v. Commission of
                        ( 97/C 252/65 )
                                                                                the European Communities (')
                                                                   (Modification of the olive oil regime — No transitional
                                                                                period — Action for damages)
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                ( 97/C 252/66 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
In Case T-81 /96 : Christos Apostolidis, Philippe Arbore,
Patrick Barraux, Wilhelm Bartscher, Erhard Baumgärtner,
Ulrich Benedict, Rutger Beukers, Teresa Blanco Oria,               In Case T-267/94: Oleifici Italiani SpA, established in
Bruno Brandalise, Klaas Buijs, Franco Capone, Bernard              Ostuni ( Italy), represented by Piero A. M. Ferrari and
Chavane de Dalmassy, Jean-Claude Closset, Bert Cremer,             Massimo Merola, of the Rome Bar, and by Antonio
Manfred de Rossi, Geoffroy de Caritat, Peter Erndwein,             Tizzano, of the Naples Bar, with an address for service in
Jean-Louis Finet, Serge Fourcaudot, Claude Fuchs, Bruno            Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain Lorang, 51 Rue
Giovannone, Karl-Heinz Gruhlke, Günther Guhl,                      Albert l er, against Commission of the European
Hermann Heidebleck, Wilhelm Heinz, Jean-Pol Hiernaut,              Communities (Agents: Eugenio de March and Alberto Dal
Tania Hiernaut, Erwin Hohnhäuser, Wolfgang Huber,                  Ferro ) — application for compensation for the loss
Klaus Kammerichs, Franz Kopp, Gerold Kramer, Patrick               allegedly suffered by the applicant owing to the absence of
Lajarge, Ulrich Lang, Fabrice Lebrun, Sandra Lessmann,             any transitional measure in Commission Regulation ( EEC )
Achim Linder, Mauro Martellenghi, Margit Merten, Erich             No 1429/92 of 26 May 1992 amending Regulation ( EEC )
Mildenberger, Irmgard Neumann-Schölles, Adrian Nicholl,            No 2568/91 on the characteristics of olive oil and olive
Norbert Nolte, Giorgio Pagliosa, Dirk Pel, Jean-Claude             residue oil and on the relevant methods of analysis ( OJ
Perrier, Gert Rasmussen, Cornelis Rijkeboer, Jürgen                No L 150, 2 . 6 . 1992 , p. 17 ) — the Court of First
Rodegher, Kuno Römer, Eva-Maria Schäfer, Walter                    Instance ( Fifth Chamber), composed of: R. García
Schmitt, Herbert Schneider, Hans Schneider, Raoul                  Valdecasas, President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; A.
Selfslag, Joseph Somers, Vittorino Tebaldi, Hartmut                Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
Thiele, Hans van de Vegt, Jacques van de Laar, Günther             judgment on 11 July 1997, in which it:
Waigel, Clive Walker, Ludwig Westenfelder, Hans
Winkelmann and Walter Ziehl, officials and temporary               1 . dismisses the application;
agents of the Commission of the European Communities,
employed in the European Institute for Transuranic                 2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.
Elements, Karlsruhe ( Germany), represented by Jean-Noel
Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the
                                                                   (!) OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994 .
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange,
v. Commission of the European Communities ( Agents :
Gianluigi Valsesia and Julian Currall ), supported by
Council of the European Union (Agent: Diego Canga
Fano ) — application, first, for annulment of the decision
taken against them by the Commission, rejecting the                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
applicants ' request for the drawing-up of their pay slips                                   (Fifth Chamber)
for January 1992 in compliance with the judgment of the
Court of First Instance of 27 October 1994 in Case T-64/                                     of 11 July 1997
92 Chavanne de Dalmassy and Others v. Commission                   in Case T-29/96: Bernd Schoch v. European Parliament ( ] )
[ 1994] ECR-SC 11-723 and, second, for compensation for
the non-material damage suffered — the Court of First              (Officials — Compensation for leave not taken — Sick
Instance (Third Chamber ), composed of: B. Vesterdorf,                                       leave — Notice)
President, C. P. Briet and A. Potocki, Judges; A. Mair,                                       ( 97/C 252/67 )
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
10 July 1997, in which it:                                                        (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   In Case T-29/96 : Bend Schoch, a former member of the
1 . dismisses the application;                                     temporary staff of the Liberal Democratic and Reformist


title: Case T-59/14: Action brought on 23 January 2014 — Blackrock v OHIM (INVESTING FOR A NEW WORLD)

text:
               28.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/26

         Action brought on 23 January 2014 — Blackrock v OHIM (INVESTING FOR A NEW WORLD)
   (Case T-59/14)
   2014/C 129/33
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Blackrock, Inc. (New York, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, K. Gilbert and M. Blair, Solicitors)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 31 October 2013 given in Case R 573/2013-1;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘INVESTING FOR A NEW WORLD’ for services in Classes 35 and 36 — Community trade mark application No 11 144 706

      Decision of the Examiner: Found the trade mark applied for not eligible for registration

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and 7(2) CTMR.


title: Case C-100/06: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2003/66/EC — Energy labelling of household electric refrigerators, freezers and their combinations — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               18.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/17

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-100/06) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2003/66/EC - Energy labelling of household electric refrigerators, freezers and their combinations - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2006/C 281/26)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Schima and J. Hottiaux, Agents)

      Defendant: Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: S. Schreiner, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2003/66/EC of 3 July 2003 amending Directive 94/2/EC implementing Council Directive 92/75/EEC with regard to energy labelling of household electric refrigerators, freezers and their combinations (OJ 2003 L 170, p. 10)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2003/66/EC of 3 July 2003 amending Directive 94/2/EC implementing Council Directive 92/75/EEC with regard to energy labelling of household electric refrigerators, freezers and their combinations, the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               2.

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

      (1)  OJ C 86, 08.04.2006


title: Case T-268/12: Order of the General Court of 19 June 2014  — Suwaid v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Syria — Lack of representation — Applicant’s failure to act — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/50

         Order of the General Court of 19 June 2014 — Suwaid v Council
   (Case T-268/12) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Syria - Lack of representation - Applicant’s failure to act - No need to adjudicate))
   2014/C 315/84
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Joseph Suwaid (Damascus, Syria) (represented: initially by L. Defalque and T. Bontinck, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: G. Étienne and V. Piessevaux, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of point A 7 of Annex I to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 266/2012 of 23 March 2012 implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2012 L 87, p. 45), and of point A 7 of Annex I to Council Implementing Decision 2012/172/CFSP of 23 March 2012 implementing Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2012 L 87, p. 103), in so far as those acts included the applicant on the list of persons subject to restrictive measures.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the present action.

               2.

               Mr Joseph Suwaid shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

      (1)  OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.


title: Case T-248/12: Action brought on 8 June 2012 — Fuhr v Commission

text:
               28.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 227/28

         Action brought on 8 June 2012 — Fuhr v Commission
   (Case T-248/12)
   2012/C 227/49
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Carl Fuhr GmbH & Co. KG (Heiligenhaus, Germany) (represented by: C. Bahr, S. Dethof and A. Malec, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision C(2012) 2069 final of 28 March 2012 in Case COMP/39452 — Mountings for windows and window-doors, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               in the alternative, reduce, as appropriate, the fine imposed on the applicant in the contested decision;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on eight pleas in law.
   First, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 101 TFEU as a result of the assumption that the applicant participated in a complex single infringement. As a result of the global approach and assessment of the conduct of each of the undertakings concerned and an unlawful uniform approach towards all the participants, the defendant was in breach of its obligation to carry out a legal assessment of the individual participation of the undertakings involved. The defendant attributed the participation of others to the applicant without any legal basis for doing so, and thereby breached the principle nulla poena sine lege under Article 49(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’).
   Second, the applicant complains of the erroneous assumption that the applicant participated in an EEA-wide infringement. The applicant did not participate in any of the numerous meetings and contacts outside Germany. Furthermore, it was not aware of an EEA-wide infringement, nor, in all the circumstances, should it have recognised this.
   Third, the applicant alleges breach of the defendant’s obligation properly to state the reasons for its decision, in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU, on account of the global, uniform view taken of the participation of each of the undertakings concerned.
   Fourth, the applicant alleges miscalculation of the fine owing to the inclusion of unrelated turnover, and thus infringement of Article 23(3) of Regulation No 1/2003 and of the 2006 Guidelines on fines. Given the lack of participation in an EEA-wide infringement, the defendant was entitled to take into account only the applicant’s turnover in Germany. Furthermore, the defendant was not entitled to take into account unrelated turnover involving wholesale customers who, as intended, sold the goods purchased exclusively outside the EEA.
   Fifth, the applicant alleges fundamental errors of assessment in the calculation of the fine imposed on it, and thus infringement of Article 23(3) of Regulation No 1/2003 and breach of the principle of the proportionality of the penalty to the offence, laid down in Article 49(3), in conjunction with Article 48(1), of the Charter. The fine imposed on the applicant is excessively high and disproportionate. In calculating the fine the defendant failed, in particular, to assess the individual participation of the applicant in terms of duration, scope and intensity, or to take account of mitigating circumstances in the applicant’s favour.
   Sixth, the applicant alleges breach of the principle of equal treatment on account of the arbitrary and incomprehensible insufficiently substantial reduction in the applicant’s fine. The reduction in the applicant’s fine is not commensurate with the extent of the reduction in the fines of all other participants, severely disadvantages the applicant and is in no way objectively justified.
   Seventh, the applicant alleges breach of the principle of equal treatment in the calculation of the basic amount of the fine. Without taking any account at all of the gravity of the individual participation, the defendant established the same percentage of the basic amount of the fine in respect of all of the undertakings, and thereby severely disadvantaged the applicant.
   Eighth, the applicant complains that the excessive duration of the proceedings and the failure to take that into account in the calculation of the fine constitutes an infringement of Article 41 of the Charter.