title: Case T-153/10: Action brought on 6 April 2010 — Schneider España de Informática v Commission

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/45

         Action brought on 6 April 2010 — Schneider España de Informática v Commission
   (Case T-153/10)
   2010/C 148/74
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Schneider España de Informática, SA (Madrid, Spain), (represented by: P. De Baere and P. Muñiz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Commission’s decision C(2010) 22 final of 18 January 2010 finding that post-clearance entry in the accounts of import duties is justified and remission of those duties is not justified in a particular case (REM 02/08);

               —

               Order the European Commission to bear the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By means of the present application, the applicant seeks, pursuant to Article 263 TFUE, the annulment of the Commission’s decision of 18 January 2010, by which the defendant concluded that the import duties concerned for colour televisions should be entered in the accounts since the conditions for the application of Article 220(2)(b) of the Community Customs Code (1) were not met. The contested decision also concluded that the remission of the import duties concerned was not justified pursuant to Article 239 of the Community Customs Code.
   In support of his appeal, the applicant submits the following pleas in law:

               Firstly, the applicant alleges that the defendant infringed its rights of defence since it took a decision which was solely based on the documents submitted by the applicant.

               Secondly, the defendant infringed Article 220(2)(b) of the Community Customs Code, taken together with Article 236 of the Community Customs Code, as:

                           —

                           The defendant erroneously considered that the anti-dumping regulations adopted against imports from third countries are automatically applicable to goods in free circulation in the EU-Turkey customs union;

                           —

                           The defendant failed to inform traders that Council Regulation (EC) No 2584/98 (2) was also applicable to goods in free circulation in the EU-Turkey customs union;

                           —

                           Alternatively, the defendant wrongly considered that no error had been committed by the competent authorities as the Turkish authorities wrongly confirmed that the anti-dumping duties imposed on goods from third countries were not applicable to goods in free circulation in the EU-Turkey customs union;

                           —

                           The defendant wrongly considered that no error had been committed by the competent authorities as the Spanish customs authorities wrongly assumed that goods accompanied by an origin certificate could not be subject to any additional duties or trade protection measures, and therefore failed to inform economic operators that their imports from Turkey could be subject to trade measures, even if such goods were in free circulation.

               In addition, the applicant submits that the error committed by the competent customs authorities could not have been reasonably detected by the person liable for payment, having acted in good faith and complied with all the provisions laid down by legislation in force as regards the customs declaration.

               Finally, the applicant submits that it finds itself in a special situation within the meaning of Article 239 of the Community Customs Code and that no deception or obvious negligence can be attributed to the applicant pursuant to this legal provision.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 302, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2584/98 of 27 November 1998 amending Regulation (EC) No 710/95 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of colour television receivers originating in Malaysia, the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, Singapore and Thailand and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed (OJ L 324, p.1).


title: Case T-421/08: Action brought on 29 September 2008 — Performing Right Society v Commission

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/42

         Action brought on 29 September 2008 — Performing Right Society v Commission
   (Case T-421/08)
   (2008/C 313/78)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Performing Right Society Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Rivas Andrés and M. Nissen, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Commission decision dated 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC) on the ground of the absence of a starting date of the infractions and hence of their duration;

               —

               Annul Article 3 and/or Article 4(2) of the Commission decision dated 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC);

               —

               In the alternative, annul Article 3 and/or Article 4(2) of the Commission decision dated 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC) as regards to the inclusion of the applicant;

               —

               Order that the Commission pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By means of the present application, the applicant seeks, pursuant to Article 230 EC, the annulment, in whole or in part, of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC).
   Under the first plea in law, the applicant alleges that the reasoning in the contested decision does not support a finding of infringement for any of the following three forms of exploitation: satellite broadcasting, on-line and cable retransmission. On this basis, the applicant contends that the Commission failed to provide evidence relating to the alleged existence of a concerted practice in which all EEA CISAC members engaged by limiting the scope of their reciprocal mandates to their respective territories. This constitutes, according to the applicant, an error of assessment and an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 253 EC. Indeed, the applicant submits that there is no parallel behaviour amongst all EEA CISAC members as illustrated by the exceptions to the territorial delineation mentioned in the contested decision itself. In addition, the applicant claims that the contested decision suffers from inadequate reasoning due to its silence as to the starting date and therefore the duration of the infringements, notably the concerted practice, thereby also infringing Articles 2 and 16(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1).
   Under the second plea in law the applicant submits that the reasoning in the contested decision is faulty as it does not prove that the applicant participated in the alleged concerted practice. Further, according to the applicant there is a plausible explanation to its behaviour other than the existence of a concerted practice, namely, that is chooses those solutions which it deems to be commercially preferable. It is submitted, moreover, that the Commission, in accordance with established case-law, should have looked into whether it is rational individual economic behaviour to appoint one or more additional collecting societies to be able to compete with both the local collecting society and the grantor society doing direct licensing.
   Under the third plea in law put forward by the applicant, the remedies imposed by Article 4(2) of the contested decision are legally uncertain, unjustified, not necessary and/or disproportionate to bring the alleged infringement to an end.
   Under its fourth plea, the applicant submits that the Commission infringed its right to be heard by not informing it of its reasons not to accept the proposed commitments.

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


title: Case C-281/09: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 24 November 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 89/552/EEC — Television broadcasting — Advertising spots — Transmission time)

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/3

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 24 November 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
      (Case C-281/09) (1)

      (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 89/552/EEC - Television broadcasting - Advertising spots - Transmission time)
      (2012/C 25/04)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Lozano Palacios and C. Vrignon, Agents)

         Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, Agent)

         Intervening party: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, (represented by S. Behzadi-Spencer and S. Hathaway, Agents)

         Re:

      Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Article 3(2) and Article 18(2) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (OJ 1989 L 298, p. 23) — Transmission time granted to advertising spots

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Declares that, by tolerating a situation in which the broadcasting of certain types of advertising, such as advertorials, telepromotion spots, sponsorship credits and micro-ads, on Spanish television channels has a duration which exceeds the maximum limit of 20 % of the transmission time within a clock hour, as laid down in Article 18(2) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities, as amended by Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 30 June 1997, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(2) of that directive;

                  2.

                  Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 256, 24.10.2009.


title: Case T-341/08: Action brought on 19 August 2008 — Hess Group v OHIM — Coloma Navarro (COLOMÉ)

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/41

         Action brought on 19 August 2008 — Hess Group v OHIM — Coloma Navarro (COLOMÉ)
   (Case T-341/08)
   (2008/C 272/81)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Hess Group AG (Berna, Switzerland) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, A. Castán Pérez-Gómez, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: José Félix Coloma Navarro (Badajoz, Spain)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the action against the Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 May 2008 lodged in time and in the required form and, via the appropriate procedure, order the annulment of that decision and order expressly that OHIM pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Word mark ‘COLOMÉ’ for goods in Class 33 (wines) (Application for Registration No 2.140.283).

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant.

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: D. José Félix Coloma Navarro.

      Trade mark right of applicant for the declaration: Spanish figurative marks ‘COLOMA’ for goods in Class 33 (wines).

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application for declaration of invalidity upheld.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: Breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark.


title: Case T-166/05: Action brought on 29 April 2005 by Borax Europe Ltd. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               25.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/29

         Action brought on 29 April 2005 by Borax Europe Ltd. against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-166/05)
   (2005/C 155/56)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 29 April 2005 by Borax Europe Ltd., established in Guildford (United Kingdom), represented by D. Vandermeersch and K. Nordlander, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Commission, SG/B/2/IS/md D(2005) 1644, dated 21 February 2005;

               —

               order the Commission to bear the costs of the procedure.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments invoked by the applicant are the same as those invoked in case T-121/05.


title: Case T-142/16: Action brought on 4 April 2016 — Dröge and Others v Commission

text:
               13.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/55

      Action brought on 4 April 2016 — Dröge and Others v Commission
      (Case T-142/16)
      (2016/C 211/69)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Katharina Dröge (Berlin, Germany), Britta Haßelmann (Berlin) and Anton Hofreiter (Berlin) (represented by: Professor W. Cremer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicants claim that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare the defendant’s unpublished and oral declaration of intention, aimed at the conclusion of a contract which is binding for the contracting parties — the European Union and the United States of America — and regarding the arrangements for accessing documents concerning the negotiations on a transatlantic trade and investment partnership (so-called TTIP documents), to be invalid or, in the alternative, contrary to EU law, in so far as it subsequently prohibits members of the parliaments of the Member States without exception from being accompanied by (vetted) staff with the inclusion of political group staff when viewing the documents in TTIP reading rooms established for that purpose (see, concerning the access regime, Annex III to Council document No 14029/15);

                  —

                  declare the defendant’s prior and unpublished (oral) decision to approve the contract (‘the approval decision’), which is aimed at the submission of the aforementioned declaration of intention, to be invalid, in so far as it subsequently prohibits members of the parliaments of the Member States without exception from being accompanied by (vetted) staff with the inclusion of political group staff when viewing the documents in TTIP reading rooms established for that purpose;

                  —

                  declare the defendant’s (oral) decision (‘the ordinance decision’) connected with the conclusion of a contract or a non-binding political agreement with the United States of America on the TTIP access regime and classifying that regime as binding under EU law to be invalid, in so far as it subsequently prohibits members of the parliaments of the Member States without exception from being accompanied by (vetted) staff with the inclusion of political group staff when viewing the documents in TTIP reading rooms established for that purpose;

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law: Infringement of the second sentence of Article 10(3) TEU in conjunction with the second subparagraph of Article 1 TEU
                  The applicants submit that the second sentence of Article 10(3) TEU established a binding objective and legal requirement for the Union and its organs to take decisions as openly as possible. That optimisation requirement, enriched by the second subparagraph of Article 1 TEU and geared towards the greatest possible transparency of Union action, is surmountable, provided that, in a given case, a justification in the form of a legitimate aim of EU law can be cited in opposition to it and that the limitation to attaining the objective is appropriate, necessary and proportionate. However, based on the possibility — which is withheld from national representatives — of accompaniment by vetted political group staff when accessing TTIP documents, such grounds do not exist.
                  In addition, there is also no justification for access to TTIP documents, as on display in the reading rooms, not being possible for Union citizens.
                  Furthermore, the second sentence of Article 10(3) TEU has been infringed because the defendant’s TTIP negotiating mandate extends to objects which fall within the competence of the Member States.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law: Infringement of Article 15(1) TFEU in conjunction with the second subparagraph of Article 1 TEU for the reasons mentioned in the first plea in law


title: Case C-402/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 30 August 2007 — Christopher Sturgeon, Gabriel Sturgeon, Alana Sturgeon v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

text:
               24.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 30 August 2007 — Christopher Sturgeon, Gabriel Sturgeon, Alana Sturgeon v Condor Flugdienst GmbH
   (Case C-402/07)
   (2007/C 283/21)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesgerichtshof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Christopher Sturgeon, Gabriel Sturgeon, Alana Sturgeon

      Defendant: Condor Flugdienst GmbH
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is it decisive for the interpretation of the term ‘cancellation’ [for the interpretation of Articles 2(l) and Article 5(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (1)] whether the original flight planning is abandoned, with the result that a delay, regardless of how long, does not constitute a cancellation if the air carrier does not actually abandon the planning for the original flight?

               2.

               If Question 1 is answered in the negative: in what circumstances is a delay of the planned flight no longer to be regarded as a delay but as a cancellation? Is the answer to this question dependent on the length of the delay?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.


title: Case T-128/11: Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2014 — LG Display and LG Display Taiwan v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Worldwide market for liquid crystal display (LCD) panels — Agreements and concerted practices concerning prices and production capacity — Internal sales — Rights of the defence — Fines — Partial immunity from fines — Single and continuous infringement — Ne bis in idem principle)

text:
               7.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/32

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2014 — LG Display and LG Display Taiwan v Commission
   (Case T-128/11) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Worldwide market for liquid crystal display (LCD) panels - Agreements and concerted practices concerning prices and production capacity - Internal sales - Rights of the defence - Fines - Partial immunity from fines - Single and continuous infringement - Ne bis in idem principle))
   2014/C 102/50
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: LG Display Co. Ltd (Seoul, South Korea); and LG Display Taiwan Co. Ltd, (Taipei, Taiwan) (represented by: A. Winckler and F.-C. Laprévote, lawyers),

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Van Nuffel and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, Agents, and by S. Kingston BL)

      Re:

   Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 8761 final of 8 December 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Case COMP/39.309 — LCD — Liquid Crystal Displays), and for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants by that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets at EUR 210 000 000 the fine imposed jointly and severally on LG Display Co. Ltd and LG Display Taiwan Co. Ltd in Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2010) 8761 final of 8 December 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Case COMP/39.309 — LCD — Liquid Crystal Displays);

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders LG Display and LG Display Taiwan to bear their own costs and to pay three-quarters of the costs incurred by the European Commission;

               4.

               Orders the Commission to bear one-quarter of its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 130, 30.4.2011.


C 48/22               EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                20.2.1999
Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-388/97 and                  Removal from the register of Case C-409/97 (1)
                          C-389/97 (1)                                                    (1999/C 48/44)
                        (1999/C 48/40)
                                                                  By order of 19 November 1998 the Court of Justice of the
By order of 11 November 1998, the President of the                European Communities (First Chamber) has ordered the
Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the          removal from the register of Case C-409/97: Commission
removal from the register of Joined Cases C-388/97 and            of the European Communities v. Grand Duchy of
C-389/97 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the             Luxembourg.
Conseil d'EÂtat): Fromagerie Philipona SA and Others v.
French Republic.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 41, 7.2.1998.
(1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998.
                                                                        Removal from the register of Case C-415/97 (1)
      Removal from the register of Case C-253/98 (1)                                      (1999/C 48/45)
                        (1999/C 48/41)
                                                                  By order of 24 November 1998, the President of the
                                                                  Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
By order of 11 November 1998 the Court of Justice of the          removal from the register of Case C-415/97: Commission
European Communities has ordered the removal from the             of the European Communities v. Italian Republic.
register of Case C-253/98: Commission of the European
Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 41, 7.2.1998.
(1) OJ C 278, 5.9.1998.
                                                                        Removal from the register of Case C-167/98 (1)
      Removal from the register of Case C-397/97 (1)                                      (1999/C 48/46)
                        (1999/C 48/42)
                                                                  By order of 2 December 1998 the Court of Justice of the
By order of 13 November 1998 the Court of Justice of the          European Communities has ordered the removal from the
European Communities has ordered the removal from the             register of Case C-167/98 (request for a preliminary ruling
register of Case C-397/97: Commission of the European             from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Westdeutsche Landesbank
Communities v. Italian Republic.                                  Girozentrale v. Johannes Leon.
(1) OJ C 26, 24.1.1998.                                           (1) OJ C 209, 4.7.1998.
      Removal from the register of Case C-274/94 (1)                   Removal from the register of Case C-305/98 P (1)
                        (1999/C 48/43)                                                    (1999/C 48/47)
By order of 17 November 1998 the Court of Justice of the          By order of 7 December 1998 the Court of Justice of the
European Communities has ordered the removal from the             European Communities has ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-274/94: United Kingdom of Great                register of Case 305/98 P: David T. Keeling v. Office for
Britain and Northern Ireland v. Commission of the                 Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
European Communities.                                             Designs).
(1) OJ C 351, 10.12.1994.                                         (1) OJ C 312, 10.10.1998.


title: Case C-86/17 P: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 June 2017 — Redpur GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Redwell Manufaktur GmbH (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of the word mark Redpur — Rejection of the application for registration)

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/12

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 June 2017 — Redpur GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Redwell Manufaktur GmbH
   (Case C-86/17 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for registration of the word mark Redpur - Rejection of the application for registration))
   (2017/C 283/17)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Redpur GmbH (represented by: S. Schiller, Agent)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Redwell Manufaktur GmbH

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Redpur GmbH is to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 213, 3.7.2017.


title: Case C-382/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supreme Court, Ireland, by order of that court dated 2 April 2003, in the case of Ryanair Ltd against Aer Rianta cpt

text:
C 275/32               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                          15.11.2003
Furthermore, the substantive amendments made by the                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzh-
Council following the Opinion of the Parliament give rise to a           of by order of that Court of 30 July 2003 in the case of
claim that the Parliament’s rights under the co-decision                 Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas against Käserei Champig-
procedure under Article 251 EC were infringed.                                           non Hofmeister GmbH & Co. KG
Finally the Federal Government claims in the alternative that                                       (Case C-385/03)
the principle of proportionality has been infringed since the
total bans provided for in Articles 3 and 4 on advertising in
the press and/or printed publications as well as on the radio                                      (2003/C 275/48)
and the internet deliberately and specifically target local or
regional situations with no cross-border element almost
exclusively, with the result that the extensive prohibitions,
within the meaning of Article 14(1) EC on the improvement                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
of the internal market, are not necessary and are therefore              European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
disproportionate. The infringement of the principle of pro-              (Federal Finance Court) of 30 July 2003, received at the Court
portionality is all the more serious because the prohibitions            Registry on 12 September 2003, for a preliminary ruling in
have a significant adverse effect on the basic right of freedom          the case of Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas against Käserei
of thought and press freedom, owing to the excessively                   Champignon Hofmeister GmbH & Co. KG on the following
broad and unspecific definition of the terms ‘advertising’ in            question:
Article 2(b) and ‘the press and other printed publications’ in
Articles 1(a) and 3 of the Directive.
                                                                         Must the first and second subparagraphs of Article 11(1) of
(1) OJ L 152, p. 16.
                                                                         Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 (1), as amended by Regulation
                                                                         (EC) No 2945/94 (2), be interpreted — also in the light of
                                                                         the principle of proportionality — as meaning that false
                                                                         information relating to individual items listed in the export
                                                                         declaration, which could result in the exporter receiving a
                                                                         higher export refund than that to which it is entitled, is by
                                                                         itself sufficient to give rise to a punitive reduction in the export
                                                                         refund in the amount set out in those provisions, even though
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supreme Court,                 the exporter expressly stated in connection with the separate
Ireland, by order of that court dated 2 April 2003, in the               application for payment which must be submitted under
          case of Ryanair Ltd against Aer Rianta cpt                     national law that it would not be applying for an export refund
                                                                         in respect of the relevant items in the export declaration?
                         (Case C-382/03)
                                                                         (1) OJ L 351 of 14.12.1987, p. 1.
                         (2003/C 275/47)                                 (2) OJ L 310 of 3.12.1994, p. 57.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Supreme Court,
Ireland, dated 2 April 2003, which was received at the Court
Registry on 10 September 2003, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Ryanair Ltd and Aer Rianta cpt on the following
questions:                                                               Action brought on 5 September 2003 by the Kingdom of
                                                                         the Netherlands against the Commission of the European
A.    Is an airport check-in desk an ‘airport installation’ within                                   Communities
      the meaning of Article 16 (3) of the Directive (1)?
B.    If the answer to A is in the affirmative, is a rent charged                                   (Case C-388/03)
      for the exclusive right to occupy a particular check-in
      desk for a period of one year or greater a fee for access to                                 (2003/C 275/49)
      airport installations within the meaning of Article 16 (3)
      of the Directive?
(1) Council Directive 96/67/EC of 15 October 1996 on access to           An action against the Commission was brought before the
    the groundhandling market at Community airports OJ L 272,            Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 September
    25.10.1996, p. 36-45.                                                2003 by the Kingdom of the Netherlands, represented by
                                                                         H.G. Sevenster, Head of the European Law Division of the
                                                                         Ministry of Foreign Affairs in The Hague.


title: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 4 March 2002 in Case C-175/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Antwerpen): Marie-Josée Verwayen-Boelen v Rĳksdienst voor Arbeidsvoorziening (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Answer to the question admitting of no reasonable doubt — Article 67(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Aggregation of periods of insurance or employment for the purpose of acquisition of a right to unemployment benefits — Requirement that periods of insurance or employment be completed lastly in accordance with the legislation under which the benefits are claimed)

text:
15.6.2002                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 144/11
the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under                     and by finally prohibiting fishing only when the quota had been
Article 5(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 170/83 of                              considerably exceeded, the French Republic has failed to fulfil
25 January 1983 establishing a Community system for the                            its obligations under Article 11(1) and (2) of Regulation
conservation and management of fishery resources (OJ 1983                          No 2241/87, as regards the 1991 to 1993 fishing years, and
L 24, p. 1), Articles 1 and 11(1) and (2) of Council Regulation                    under Article 21(1) and (2) of Regulation No 2847/93, as
(EEC) No 2241/87 of 23 July 1987 establishing certain                              regards the 1994 to 1996 fishing years;
control measures for fishing activities (OJ 1987 L 207, p. 1),
Article 9(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 of                             By failing to take penal or administrative action against any
20 December 1992 establishing a Community system for                               master of a vessel or other person responsible for fishing after a
fisheries and aquaculture (OJ 1992 L 389, p. 1) and Articles 2,                    prohibition had been imposed, the French Republic has failed
21(1) and (2) and 31 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93                        to fulfil its obligations under Article 1(2) of Regulation
of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable                        No 2241/87, as regards the 1991 to 1993 fishing years, and
to the common fisheries policy (OJ 1993 L 261, p. 1) (Case                         under Article 31 of Regulation No 2847/93, as regards the
C-418/00), and under Article 9(2) of Regulation No 3760/92                         1994 to 1996 fishing years;
and Articles 2, 21 and 31 of Regulation No 2847/93, in
conjunction with Council Regulation (EC) No 3362/94 of                       2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
20 December 1994 fixing, for certain fish stocks and groups
of fish stocks, the total allowable catches for 1995 and certain
conditions under which they may be fished (OJ 1994 L 363,
                                                                             (1) OJ C 4 of 6.1.2001.
p. 1), and Council Regulation (EC) No 3074/95 of 22 Decem-
ber 1995 fixing, for certain fish stocks and groups of fish
stocks, the total allowable catches for 1996 and certain
conditions under which they may be fished (OJ 1995 L 330,
p. 1) (Case C-419/00),
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
The Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of                                          (Fifth Chamber)
the Chamber, D. A. O. Edward (Rapporteur) and M. Wathelet,
Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,
has given a judgment on 25 April 2002, in which it:                                                     4 March 2002
                                                                             in Case C-175/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             the Arbeidshof te Antwerpen): Marie-Josée Verwayen-
                                                                                Boelen v Rijksdienst voor Arbeidsvoorziening (1)
1.    Declares that, as regards the 1991 and 1996 fishing years, by          (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Answer to the
      failing to determine the appropriate detailed rules for the            question admitting of no reasonable doubt — Article 67(3)
      utilisation of the quotas allocated to it and by failing to ensure     of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Aggregation of periods
      compliance with the Community rules on the conservation of             of insurance or employment for the purpose of acquisition of
      species through monitoring of fishing activities and through           a right to unemployment benefits — Requirement that
      appropriate inspection of landings and catch records, the French       periods of insurance or employment be completed lastly in
      Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(2) of    accordance with the legislation under which the benefits are
      Council Regulation (EEC) No 170/83 of 25 January 1983                                                 claimed)
      establishing a Community system for the conservation and
      management of fishery resources, Article 1(1) of Council
      Regulation (EEC) No 2241/87 of 23 July 1987 establishing                                         (2002/C 144/16)
      certain control measures for fishing activities, Article 9(2) of
      Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 of 20 December 1992
      establishing a Community system for fisheries and aquaculture                              (Language of the case: Dutch)
      and Article 2 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of
      12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to
      the common fisheries policy;                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
      By not provisionally prohibiting fishing by vessels flying the
      French flag or registered in French territory when the catches         In Case C-175/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
      landed were deemed to have exhausted the corresponding quota,          EC by the Arbeidshof te Antwerpen (Belgium) for a preliminary
 ---pagebreak--- C 144/12                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          15.6.2002
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                 preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
Marie-Josée Verwayen-Boelen and Rijksdienst voor                            between Gründerzentrum-Betriebs-GmbH and Land Baden-
Arbeidsvoorziening, on the interpretation of Article 4(1) of                Württemberg, on the interpretation of Council Directive 69/
Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971                  335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the
on the application of social security schemes to employed                   raising of capital (OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412),
persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their                   as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985
families moving within the Community, as amended and                        (OJ 1985 L 156, p. 23), the Court (Sixth Chamber) composed
updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December                  of: F. Macken, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric,
1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber)                        R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), V. Skouris and J. N. Cunha Rodri-
composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, S. von                      gues, Judges; L. A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass,
Bahr, D. A. O. Edward, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur) and                       Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 March 2002, in which
C. W. A. Timmermans, Judges; Advocate General: P. Léger;                    it has ruled:
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 4 March 2002, in
which it has ruled:
Under Article 67(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the
Council of 14 June 1971 on the application to employed persons, to
self-employed persons and to members of their families moving               Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect
within the Community, as amended and updated by Council                     taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Council Directive 85/
Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, the application               303/EEC of 10 June 1985, must be interpreted as meaning that
of the rules on the aggregation of periods of insurance or employment       charges constitute taxes for the purposes of that directive where they
laid down in Article 67(1) and (2) is, except in the cases expressly        are payable for the drawing up of a notarially attested act recording
referred to in Article 67(3), subject to the condition that the person      a transaction covered by Directive 69/335, as amended, under a
concerned has completed lastly periods of insurance or employment in        system where the notaries are civil servants and the charges are paid
accordance with the provisions of the legislation under which the           in part to the public authority which employs them, and used for the
unemployment benefits are claimed.                                          financing of its official business, such as the system in force in the
                                                                            district of the Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe.
(1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.
                                                                            Where they amount to a tax for the purposes of Directive 69/335,
                                                                            as amended, charges payable for the drawing up of a notarially
                                                                            attested act recording the formation of a capital company are, in
                     ORDER OF THE COURT                                     principle, prohibited by Article 10(c) thereof.
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                            21 March 2002
                                                                            The fact that charges payable for the drawing up of a notarially
in Case C-264/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                   attested act recording the formation of a capital company, which
the Amtsgericht Müllheim/Baden): Gründerzentrum-                            increase directly in proportion to the nominal value of the capital
       Betriebs-GmbH v Land Baden-Württemberg (1)                           raised, cannot exceed a certain maximum, is not sufficient, by itself,
                                                                            to render them duties paid by way of fees or dues within the meaning
                                                                            of Directive 69/335, as amended, where the amount of that
(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Raising of                      maximum bears no relation to the costs of the service for which the
capital — Directive 69/335/EEC — Charges for the drawing                    charges constitute the consideration.
up of a notarially attested act recording the formation of a
                          capital company)
                           (2002/C 144/17)
                    (Language of the case: German)                          (1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-264/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Amtsgericht Müllheim/Baden (Germany) for a


title: Case T-392/14: Action brought on 4 June 2014  — Gutser v Commission

text:
               28.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/28

         Action brought on 4 June 2014 — Gutser v Commission
   (Case T-392/14)
   2014/C 245/38
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Gutser, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J.C. García Muñoz, J.I. Jiménez-Blanco Carrillo de Albornoz and J. Corral García, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay all the costs incurred in the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The decision contested in the present proceedings is the same as that contested in Case T-515/13 Commission v Spain, relating to the tax regime applicable to certain finance lease agreements, also known as the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by an infringement of essential procedural requirements and that it infringes Articles 20, 21 and 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in that it was adopted following an investigation procedure in which there were substantial irregularities.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Articles 107 and 108 TFEU in considering that the measures at issue constitute State aid, without having proved their selective nature.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Articles 107 and 108 TFEU in considering that the measures at issue constitute State aid, without having proved their effect on inter-Community trade.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law and infringed Article 107 TFEU in characterising the investors as beneficiaries of the aid. In addition, the decision is not supported by a sufficient statement of reasons.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in ordering the recovery of the aid in breach of the principles of legal certainty, the protection of legitimate expectations and equal treatment, as well as Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.


title: Case C-60/14: Order of the President of the Court of 28 January 2016 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

text:
               18.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 136/22

         Order of the President of the Court of 28 January 2016 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-60/14) (1)

   (2016/C 136/27)
   Language of the case: Greek
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 93, 29.3.2014.


title: Case C-40/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 2 February 2015 — Minister Finansów v BRE Ubezpieczenia Sp. z o.o., established in Warsaw

text:
               11.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/7

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 2 February 2015 — Minister Finansów v BRE Ubezpieczenia Sp. z o.o., established in Warsaw
   (Case C-40/15)
   (2015/C 155/09)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Minister Finansów

      Respondent: BRE Ubezpieczenia Sp. z o.o., established in Warsaw

      Question referred

   Must Article 135(1)(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) be interpreted as meaning that services such as those in the present case, which are supplied on behalf of an insurance undertaking by a third party — in the name and on behalf of the insurer — which has no legal relationship with the insured person, are covered by the exemption referred to in that provision?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Joined Cases T-295/04 to T-297/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of  8 September 2005  — ASAJA and Others v Council (Action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 864/2004 — Support scheme in the olive oil sector — Natural and legal persons — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               26.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/24

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 September 2005 — ASAJA and Others v Council
   (Joined Cases T-295/04 to T-297/04) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Regulation (EC) No 864/2004 - Support scheme in the olive oil sector - Natural and legal persons - Lack of individual concern - Inadmissibility)
   (2005/C 296/53)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Centro Provincial de Jóvenes Agricultores de Jaén (ASAJA), Salvador Contreras Gila, José Ramiro López, Antonio Ramiro López, Cristóbal Gallego Martínez, Benito García Burgos and Antonio Rarras Rosa (Jaén, Spain) (represented by: J. Vásquez Medina, lawyer)

      Defendant(s): Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Balta and F. Florindo Gijón, Agents)
   Application for
   annulment of Article 1(7) of Council Regulation (EC) No 864/2004 of 29 April 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, and adapting it by reason of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia to the European Union.
   Operative part of the Order

               1.

               The actions are dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               The applicants will bear their own costs and those of the Council.

               3.

               It is not necessary to adjudicate on the application to intervene lodged by the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 251, 9.10.2004.


title: Case C-176/13 P: Appeal brought on 9 April 2013 by Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 29 January 2013 in Case T-496/10: Bank Mellat v Council of the European Union

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/20

         Appeal brought on 9 April 2013 by Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 29 January 2013 in Case T-496/10: Bank Mellat v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-176/13 P)
   2013/C 171/41
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert and M. Bishop, Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Bank Mellat, European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 January 2013 in Case T-496/10;

               —

               give a definitive ruling on the case and dismiss the application brought by Bank Mellat against the contested measures;

               —

               order Bank Mellat to pay the costs incurred by the Council in the proceedings at first instance and in this appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Council considers that the judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2012 in Case T-496/10, Bank Mellat v. Council, is vitiated by the following errors of law:

               1.

               The General Court was mistaken to rule, with regard to the admissibility of the action, that Bank Mellat was entitled to rely on fundamental rights protections and guarantees regardless of whether it could be considered as an emanation of the Iranian State;

               2.

               The General Court was wrong to hold that certain of the reasons given for imposing restrictive measures against Bank Mellat were insufficiently precise;

               3.

               The General Court erroneously applied the case-law concerning the communication of information on the Council's file;

               4.

               The General Court erroneously considered that the reasons given for imposing restrictive measures against Bank Mellat did not satisfy the conditions for designation in the relevant legal acts and were not substantiated, insofar as:

                           —

                           it failed to pay due respect to a finding by the United Nations Security Council concerning Bank Mellat's facilitation of transactions for Iranian nuclear, missile and defence entities;

                           —

                           it failed to take due account of the fact that the evidence for Bank Mellat's support to Iran's nuclear activities comes from confidential sources;

                           —

                           it wrongly considered that Bank Mellat's admitted provision of banking services to an entity involved in Iran's nuclear proliferation activities before that entity's designation by the UN Security Council was insufficient to justify the imposition of restrictive measures against Bank Mellat.


title: Case C-568/12 P: Appeal brought on 29 November 2012 by Doru Cristian Ioanovici against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 25 September 2012 in Case T-313/12: Ioanovici v Commission

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/53

         Appeal brought on 29 November 2012 by Doru Cristian Ioanovici against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 25 September 2012 in Case T-313/12: Ioanovici v Commission
   (Case C-568/12 P)
   2013/C 225/96
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Doru Cristian Ioanovici (represented by: R. Neagu, avocat)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
   By order of 27 June 2013 the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


title: Case C-127/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 12 March 2015 — Verein für Konsumenteninformation v INKO, Inkasso GmbH

text:
               22.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 12 March 2015 — Verein für Konsumenteninformation v INKO, Inkasso GmbH
   (Case C-127/15)
   (2015/C 205/18)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Verein für Konsumenteninformation

      Respondent: INKO, Inkasso GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is a debt collection agency that offers instalment agreements in connection with the professional recovery of debts on behalf of its client and that charges fees for this service that are ultimately to be borne by the debtors operating as a ‘credit intermediary’ within the meaning of Article 3(f) of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (1)?

               2.

               If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
               Is an instalment agreement entered into between a debtor and his creditor through the intermediation of a debt collection agency a ‘deferred payment, free of charge’ within the meaning of Article 2(2)(j) of Directive 2008/48 if the debtor only undertakes therein to pay the outstanding debt and such interest and costs as he would have incurred by law in any case as a result of his default — in other words, even in the absence of such an agreement?

      (1)  OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66.


title: Case C-269/06: Action brought on 15 June 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Centre de traduction des organes de l'Union européenne (CDT)

text:
               12.8.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/13

         Action brought on 15 June 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Centre de traduction des organes de l'Union européenne (CDT)
   (Case C-269/06)
   (2006/C 190/22)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J.-F. Pasquier and D. Martin, Agents)

      Defendant: Centre de traduction des organes de l'Union européenne (CDT)
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the CDT's decision not to pay employer's contributions to the Community pension scheme;

               —

               order the CDT to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Under Article 83a(2) of the new Staff Regulations, ‘agencies which do not receive a subsidy from the general budget of the European Union shall pay into that budget the entire amount of the contributions needed to finance the scheme.’
   On that basis, the Commission requested that CDT pay into the budget sums corresponding to the employer's contribution to the pension scheme for 2005 and subsequent years.
   The CDT nonetheless refused, denying that it was a self-financed agency. The CDT claims that it should be regarded as a subsidised agency. According to the Commission, however, it is not in dispute that the CDT has received no operating subsidies from the general budget of the European Union since 1998; it has received merely a remuneration commensurate with its services to inter-institutional cooperation in the form of translation.


title: Case C-99/14 P: Appeal brought on 28 February 2014 by Federación Nacional de Empresarios de Minas de Carbón (Carbunión) against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 10 December 2013 in Case T-176/11: Federación Nacional de Empresarios de Minas de Carbón (Carbunión) v Council of the European Union

text:
               14.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/25

         Appeal brought on 28 February 2014 by Federación Nacional de Empresarios de Minas de Carbón (Carbunión) against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 10 December 2013 in Case T-176/11: Federación Nacional de Empresarios de Minas de Carbón (Carbunión) v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-99/14 P)
   2014/C 112/31
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Federación Nacional de Empresarios de Minas de Carbón (Carbunión) (represented by: K. Desai, solicitor, S. Cisnal de Ugarte, abogada)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare the appeal well~ founded and admissible;

               —

               Set aside the Order of the General Court of 10 December 2013 in case T-176/11 Carbunión v Council and, annul Articles 3(l)(a), (b), (f) and Article(3)(3) (the ‘Contested Provisions’') of Decision 2010/787 (1) (the ‘Decision’) of 10 December 2010 on State aid to facilitate closure of uncompetitive coal mines and give final judgment on the substance of the case; and

               —

               Order the Council to bear the costs incurred by the Appellant both at first instance and in connection with the appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Appellant relies on five grounds in support of its appeal.

               —

               First, the Appellant submits that the General Court infringed its obligation to state reasons adequately pursuant to Article 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice when it considered that the Contested Provisions are not severable from the remainder of the Decision.

               —

               Second, the Appellant submits that the General Court erred in law when considering that Article 7 of the Decision would serve no purpose without the Contested Provisions.

               —

               Third, the General Court erred in law in its interpretation of Article 3(1)(a) of the Decision by not considering that the deadline contained therein defines a special temporal scope of the Decision.

               —

               Fourth, the General Court erred in law in its interpretation of the conditions in Article 3(l)(f) of the Decision by considering it a compatibility condition and not a modality of granting the closure aid.

               —

               Fifth, the General Court erred in law in concluding that the severability of the Contested Provisions would alter the spirit and the substance of the Decision.

      (1)  OJ L 336, p. 24


title: Case C-226/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Wiesbaden (Germany) lodged on 29 April 2013 — Stefan Fahnenbrock v Hellenic Republic

text:
               27.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 215/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Wiesbaden (Germany) lodged on 29 April 2013 — Stefan Fahnenbrock v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-226/13)
   2013/C 215/05
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Wiesbaden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Stefan Fahnenbrock

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic

      Question referred

   Is Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 [of the European Parliament and] of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service [in the Member States] of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters [(service of documents), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000] (1) to be interpreted as meaning that an action — in which a purchaser of bonds issued by the defendant that were in the safe-keeping of S-Broker AG & Co. KG, in the securities account of the applicant, and in respect of which the applicant had not accepted the defendant’s exchange offer made at the end of February 2012, demands compensation for damages in the amount of the difference in value relative to an exchange of the bonds that was nonetheless effected in March 2012 and which was economically disadvantageous for the applicant — is to be regarded as a ‘civil or commercial matter’ within the meaning of the Regulation?

      (1)  OJ 2007 L 324, p. 79.


C 136/14              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  15.5.1999
       Removal from the register of Case C-19/98 (1)                 the register of Case C-133/97 (reference for a preliminary
                                                                     ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Livor-
                        (1999/C 136/30)                              no): Centro Acciai Rivestiti Srl (CAR) v Direzione Regionale
                                                                     delle Entrate per la Toscana (Sezione di Livorno).
By order of 26 February 1999 the President of the Fifth
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities          (1) OJ C 181, 14.6.1997.
has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-19/98:
Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of
Spain.
(1) OJ C 94, 28.3.1998.
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-18/98 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 136/32)
                                                                     By order of 4 March 1999 the President of the Fourth Chamber
       Removal from the register of Case C-133/97 (1)                of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has
                                                                     ordered the removal from the register of Case C-18/98:
                        (1999/C 136/31)                              Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of
                                                                     Spain.
By order of 2 March 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from             (1) OJ C 94, 28.3.1998.


title: Case T-84/13: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2015 — Samsung SDI and Others v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Global market for cathode ray tubes for television sets and computer monitors — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Agreements and concerted practices on pricing, market sharing, capacity and production — Single and continuous infringement — Duration of the infringement — Cooperation during the administrative procedure — 2006 Leniency Notice — Reduction of the fine — Calculation of the fine — Taking account of undertakings’ sales according to the place of delivery — Taking account of the average value of sales recorded during the infringement period)

text:
               19.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2015 — Samsung SDI and Others v Commission
   (Case T-84/13) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Global market for cathode ray tubes for television sets and computer monitors - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Agreements and concerted practices on pricing, market sharing, capacity and production - Single and continuous infringement - Duration of the infringement - Cooperation during the administrative procedure - 2006 Leniency Notice - Reduction of the fine - Calculation of the fine - Taking account of undertakings’ sales according to the place of delivery - Taking account of the average value of sales recorded during the infringement period))
   (2015/C 346/20)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Samsung SDI Co. Ltd (Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea); Samsung SDI Germany GmbH (Berlin, Germany); and Samsung SDI (Malaysia) Bhd (Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus, Malaysia) (represented initially by G. Berrisch, lawyer, D. Hull, Solicitor, and L.-A. Grelier, lawyer, then by D. Hull and L.-A. Grelier, and subsequently by L.-A. Grelier, D. Geradin, J. Ysewyn, P. Camesasca, lawyers, and J. Flynn QC)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Biolan, G. Meessen and H. van Vliet, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2012) 8839 final of 5 December 2012 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.437 — TV and Computer Monitor Tubes) and for a reduction of the fines imposed on the applicants.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action in so far as it concerns Samsung SDI Germany GmbH;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders Samsung SDI Co. Ltd and Samsung SDI (Malaysia) Bhd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 108, 13.4.2013.


title: Case T-166/15: Action brought on 2 April 2015 — Gramberg v OHIM — Mahdavi Sabet (Protective case for a mobile telephone)

text:
               15.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 198/40

         Action brought on 2 April 2015 — Gramberg v OHIM — Mahdavi Sabet (Protective case for a mobile telephone)
   (Case T-166/15)
   (2015/C 198/55)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Claus Gramberg (Essen, Germany) (represented by: S. Kettler, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sorouch Mahdavi Sabet (Paris, France)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Proprietor of the design at issue: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Design at issue: Community design No 1 968 496-0002

      Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 January 2015 in Case R 460/2013-3

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision and declare Community design No 1 968 496-0002 invalid;
               in the alternative,

               —

               annul the contested decision and remit the case to the Board of Appeal for a new decision on the invalidity of Community design No 1 968 496-0002;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of 5(1)(b) Regulation No 6/2002;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1) of Regulation No 6/2002.


title: Case C-247/05: Action brought on 9 June 2005 by Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/26

         Action brought on 9 June 2005 by Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-247/05)
   (2005/C 217/51)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 June 2005 by Commission of the European Communities, represented by Minas Konstantinidis and Michel Van Beck, acting as Agents.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare that, by incorrectly transposing Council Directive 96/61/EC (1) of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2(6) and (11), 5(1), 9(3) to (6), the second indent to Article 13(2), the second indent to Article 14 and annexes III and IV to the abovementioned directive;

               —

               Order the Netherlands to pay the costs.

         Pleas and main arguments:
   The Netherlands Government adopted in due time the requisite legislative and administrative measures in order to comply with the directive and the legislative proposal in course of preparation serves merely to clarify and elucidate the various headings of the directive.
   The Commission further points out that the way in which Member States are bound to transpose directives in their national legal systems has on numerous occasions been expounded by the Court. For example, in the judgment in Case C-361/88 Commission v Germany [1991] ECR I-2567, the Court used the following formulation:

      ‘…The transposition of a directive into domestic law does not necessarily require that its provisions be incorporated formally and verbatim in express, specific legislation; a general legal context may, depending on the content of the directive, be adequate for the purpose provided that it does indeed guarantee the full application of the directive in a sufficiently clear and precise manner so that, where the directive is intended to create rights for individuals, the persons concerned can ascertain the full extent of their rights and, where appropriate, rely on them before the national courts.’

   In the present case the Commission is of the view that transposition of the directive into the Netherlands legal system cannot in several respects be regarded as ‘adequate’.

      (1)  OJ 1996 L 257, p. 26.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 September 2002 in Case C-113/00: Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Agriculture — Aid for horticultural products intended for industrial processing in Extremadura — Article 87(1) and (3)(a) and (c) EC — Small amount of aid — No comments from parties concerned — Operating aid — Aid relating to products subject to a common organisation of the market — Restrictions on the free movement of goods — Statement of reasons)

text:
9.11.2002                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 274/7
5.    The first paragraph of Article 95 of the Treaty precludes the                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      levying of a tax such as that at issue in the main proceedings,
      which is payable on car tax, in so far as the amount charged as
      such a tax on a used car imported from another Member State
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
      exceeds the amount of the residual tax incorporated in the value
      of a similar used car already registered in the national territory.
                                                                                of 19 September 2002
( 1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
                                                                             in Case C-113/00: Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities ( 1)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      (State aid — Agriculture — Aid for horticultural products
                                                                             intended for industrial processing in Extremadura —
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                   Article 87(1) and (3)(a) and (c) EC — Small amount of aid
                                                                             — No comments from parties concerned — Operating aid
                                                                             — Aid relating to products subject to a common organisation
                      of 19 September 2002                                   of the market — Restrictions on the free movement of goods
                                                                                — Statement of reasons)
in Case C-104/00 P: DKV Deutsche Krankenversicherung
AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
             (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)                                                      (2002/C 274/10)
(Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC)
No 40/94 — Word ‘Companyline’ — Absolute ground for
                 refusal — Distinctive character)                                               (Language of the case: Spanish)
                           (2002/C 274/09)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                   (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             In Case C-113/00, Kingdom of Spain (Agent: S. Ortiz Vaamon-
                                                                             de) v Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
In Case C-104/00 P, DKV Deutsche Krankenversicherung AG                      D. Triantafyllou): Application for annulment of Commission
(represented by: S. von Petersdorff-Campen): Appeal against                  Decision 2000/237/EC of 22 December 1999 concerning an
the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European                  aid scheme implemented by Spain in favour of horticultural
Communities (Fourth Chamber) of 12 January 2000 in Case                      products intended for industrial processing in Extremadura in
T-19/99 DKV v OHIM (COMPANYLINE) [2000] ECR II-1,                            the 1997/98 marketing year (OJ 2000 L 75, p. 54), the Court
seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other party to the              (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the
proceedings being: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                  Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet and
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: A. von                      C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advo-
Mühlendahl and D. Schennen), the Court (Fifth Chamber),                      cate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on
composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,                 19 September 2002, in which it:
S. von Bahr, M. Wathelet, C.W.A. Timmermans and A. Rosas,
Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
on 19 September 2002, in which it:                                           1.    Dismisses the application;
1.    Dismisses the appeal;                                                  2.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
2.    Orders DKV Deutsche Krankenversicherung AG to pay the
      costs.
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
( 1) OJ C 192 of 8.7.2000.


title: Case T-272/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 September 2005 — Fernández Gómez v Commission (Staff cases — Temporary agent — Article 2(a) of the CEOS — Admissibility — Confirmatory act — Limitation of the duration of the contract — Possibility of renewal — Anti-overlap rule — Period worked as a national expert on secondment — Discretionary power of the Commission)

text:
               15.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 257/9

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 September 2005 — Fernández Gómez v Commission
   (Case T-272/03) (1)

   (Staff cases - Temporary agent - Article 2(a) of the CEOS - Admissibility - Confirmatory act - Limitation of the duration of the contract - Possibility of renewal - Anti-overlap rule - Period worked as a national expert on secondment - Discretionary power of the Commission)
   (2005/C 257/17)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties:

      Applicant(s): Maria Dolores Fernández Gómez (Brussels, Belgium) (represented initially by J. Iturriagagoitia Bassas and K. Delvolvé and then by J. Iturriagagoitia Bassas, lawyers)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities (represented initially by J. Curral, H. Tserepa-Lacombe and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and then J. Curral and H. Tserepa-Lacombe, as agents)
   Application for:
   (i) annulment of the decision of the Authority Responsible for Concluding Contracts of Employment of 12 May 2003 rejecting the request for renewal of the applicant's temporary agent contract and (ii) an order that the Commission pay the sum of EUR 101 328,60, together with default interest, as compensation for the damage suffered
   Operative part of the judgment:
   The Court:

               1)

               Annuls the decision of the Authority Responsible for Concluding Contracts of Employment of 12 May 2003 rejecting the request for renewal of the applicant's contract;

               2)

               Orders the Commission to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 50 000 (fifty thousand euro) as compensation for the damage suffered;

               3)

               Orders the Commission to pay its own costs and those of the applicant, including those of the procedure for interim measures.

      (1)  OJ C 251, 18.10.2003.


title: Case T-368/04: Action brought on 13 September 2004 by Luc Verheyden against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/44

         Action brought on 13 September 2004 by Luc Verheyden against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-368/04)
   (2004/C 300/87)
   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 13 September 2004 by Luc Verheyden, residing at Angera (Italy), represented by Eric Boigelot, avocat.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decisions taken by the applicant's superior on 4 February 2004, 24 February 2004 and 27 February 2004;

               —

               annul the appointing authority's decision answering the complaint (R/159/04) of 1 June 2004, received on 14 June 2004;

               —

               annul any decision which may be taken during the proceedings;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the compensation for 30 days of annual leave not used up or paid, pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 4 of Annex V to the Staff Regulations of Officials, together with interest at 5.25 % from the date of this action;

               —

               order payment of damages for non-material damage and detriment to his career, assessed ex æquo et bono at € 12 500, subject to any increase or reduction during the course of the proceedings;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The applicant challenges the decision not to allow him to carry over his days of leave to 2004. In support of his application, he pleads infringement of Articles 24 and 57 of the Staff Regulations, infringement of Article 4 of Annex V to the Staff Regulations laying down the detailed rules for the granting of leave and disregard of the principles of proper administration, equal treatment and protection of legitimate expectations, and a manifest error of assessment.


title: Case C-98/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 May 2012 — Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a chocolate rabbit with a red ribbon)

text:
               7.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/3

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 May 2012 — Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-98/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a chocolate rabbit with a red ribbon)
   2012/C 200/04
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG (represented by: R. Lange, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)

      Re:

   Appeal lodged against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 17 December 2010 — Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli v OHIM (T-336/08), by which the General Court dismissed the action for annulment brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 June 2008, rejecting the appeal against the decision of the Examiner to refuse registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a chocolate rabbit with a red ribbon as a Community trade mark for some goods in Class 30 — Distinctive character of the mark

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 April 2004 in Joined Cases C-468/01 P to C-472/01 P: Procter & Gamble Company v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Three-dimensional tablets for washing machines or dishwashers — Absolute ground for refusal to register — Distinctive character)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/15

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Sixth Chamber)
   of 29 April 2004
   in Joined Cases C-468/01 P to C-472/01 P: Procter & Gamble Company v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Three-dimensional tablets for washing machines or dishwashers - Absolute ground for refusal to register - Distinctive character)
   (2004/C 118/27)
   Language of the case: English
   In Joined Cases C-468/01 P to C-472/01 P: five appeals by Procter & Gamble Company, established in Cincinnati (United States) (Lawyers: C. van Nispen and G. Kuipers ) v against the judgments of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Second Chamber) of 19 September 2001 in Case T-117/00 Procter & Gamble v OHIM (Square tablet, white and pale green) [2001] ECR II-2723, Case T-118/00 Procter & Gamble v OHIM (Square tablet, white with green speckles and pale green) [2001] ECR II-2731, Case T-119/00 Procter & Gamble v OHIM (Square tablet, white with yellow and blue speckles) [2001] ECR II-2761, Case T-120/00 Procter & Gamble v OHIM (Square tablet, white with blue speckles) [2001] ECR II-2769, and Case T-121/00 Procter & Gamble v OHIM (Square tablet, white with green and blue speckles) [2001] ECR II-2777, seeking to have those judgments set aside, the other party to the proceedings being: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: D. Schennen and C. Røhl Søberg) - the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, acting as the President of the Sixth Chamber, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and F. Macken (Rapporteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 April 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeals;

               2.

               Orders Procter & Gamble Company to pay the costs

      (1)  OJ C 68 of 16.3.2002


title: Case F-59/11: Action brought on 24 May 2011 — ZZ v OHIM

text:
               16.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/34

         Action brought on 24 May 2011 — ZZ v OHIM
   (Case F-59/11)
   2011/C 211/70
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant(s): ZZ (represented by: R. Adam and P. Ketter, lawyers)

      Defendant: OHIM

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   First, annulment of the decision refusing a second renewal of the applicant’s initial contract as a member of the temporary staff and, second, annulment of his new contract as a member of the temporary staff, and damages.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the President of OHIM of 29 September 2010 refusing a second renewal of his contract as a member of the temporary staff initially concluded on 16 July 2005;

               —

               Annul the fixed term contract as a member of the temporary staff concluded on 1 August 2010 in so far as that contract in fact constitutes a second renewal of the initial contract referred to above;

               —

               Annul the decision of the President of OHIM of 18 February 2011;

               —

               Declare the existence of an employment relationship of indefinite duration;

               —

               Otherwise, annul the legal classification of the initial contract concluded on 16 July 2005 and of its end date, fixed, after renewal, at 16 July 2010, and reclassify it as employment on a contract of indefinite duration or declare that the applicant’s employment is of indefinite duration;

               —

               Order the defendant to make good the material and non-material loss suffered by the applicant through the conduct of OHIM, fixed provisionally, without obligation and without prejudice inter alia to possible increase during proceedings, at EUR 6 113,79 for the material loss and EUR 30 000,00 for the non-material loss;

               —

               In the alternative and if, contrary to all probability, the Tribunal should conclude that, despite the conclusion of a contract of employment of indefinite duration, the employment relationship ended on 16 July 2010 — quod non — grant damages for wrongful termination of contract;

               —

               In the further alternative, and if, contrary to all probability, the Tribunal should conclude that no reclassification or declaration of employment of indefinite duration was possible — quod non — grant damages for the loss suffered through the wrongful conduct of OHIM;

               —

               Reserve to the applicant all rights, remedies, means and actions, and, in particular, an order that OHIM pay damages commensurate with the loss suffered;

               —

               Reserve to the applicant the right to adduce by any means offered by the law and, in particular, by the hearing of witnesses, evidence of the facts of the case;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.


title: Case T-660/14: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2015 — SV Capital v EBA (Economic and monetary policy — Application to initiate an investigation for an alleged breach of EU law — Decision of the EBA — Decision of the Board of Appeal of the European Supervisory Authorities — Finding of the Court of its own motion — Lack of competence of the author of the act — Action for annulment — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Delay — Partly inadmissible)

text:
               19.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/30

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2015 — SV Capital v EBA
   (Case T-660/14) (1)

   ((Economic and monetary policy - Application to initiate an investigation for an alleged breach of EU law - Decision of the EBA - Decision of the Board of Appeal of the European Supervisory Authorities - Finding of the Court of its own motion - Lack of competence of the author of the act - Action for annulment - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Delay - Partly inadmissible))
   (2015/C 346/35)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: SV Capital OÜ (Tallinn, Estonia) (represented by: M. Greinoman, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Banking Authority (EBA) (represented by: J. Overett Somnier and Z. Giotaki, acting as Agents, and by F. Tuytschaever, lawyer)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: W. Mölls and K.-P. Wojcik, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment, first, of Decision C 2013 002 of the EBA of 21 February 2014 rejecting the applicant’s request for an investigation to be initiated against the Estonian and Finnish financial sector supervisory authorities, pursuant to Article 17(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority), amending Decision No 716/2009/EC and repealing Commission Decision 2009/78/EC (OJ 2010 L 331, p. 12), as a result of an alleged breach of EU law and, secondly, of Decision 2014-C1-02 of the Board of Appeal of the European Supervisory Authorities of 14 July 2014 dismissing the action brought against that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Decision 2014-C1-02 of the Board of Appeal of the European Supervisory Authorities of 14 July 2014;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 431, 1.12.2014.


title: Case T-799/14: Action brought on 5 December 2014 — Gazprom Neft v Council

text:
               9.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 81/22

         Action brought on 5 December 2014 — Gazprom Neft v Council
   (Case T-799/14)
   (2015/C 081/29)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Gazprom Neft OAO (Saint Petersburg, Russia) (represented by: L. Van den Hende, lawyer, and S. Cogman, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Article 1(3) of Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP of 8 September 2014 (1), inserting Article 4(a) into Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP;

               —

               annul Article 1(3) of Council Regulation No 960/2014 of 8 September 2014 (2), inserting Article 3(a) into Council Regulation No 833/2014;

               —

               annul Article 1(1) and the Annex of Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP, to the extent they insert Article 1(2)(b)-(d), Article 1(3) and Annex III into Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP, in so far as these provisions concern the applicant;

               —

               annul Article 1(5), Article 1(9) and Annex III of Council Regulation No 960/2014, to the extent they insert Article 5(2)(b)-(d), Article 5(3) and Annex VI into Council Regulation No 833/2014, in so far as these provisions concern the applicant;

               —

               annul Article 1(4) of Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP, replacing Article 7(1)(a) of Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP, in so far as this provision concerns the applicant;

               —

               annul Article 1(5a) of Council Regulation (EU) No 960/2014, replacing Article 11(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014, in so far as this provision concerns the applicant; and

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs of the applicant in the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) due to a lack of reasoning since, inter alia, neither Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP nor Council Regulation No 960/2014 even attempt to explain why the applicant's non-conventional oil projects are the subject of targeted restrictive measures.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that Article 215 TFEU is an inappropriate legal basis for the contested provisions of Council Regulation (EU) No 960/2014 and that Article 29 TEU is an inappropriate legal basis for the contested provisions of Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the contested provisions violate the EU-Russia Agreement on Partnership and Cooperation (3).

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of proportionality and fundamental rights. The contested provisions constitute a disproportionate interference with the applicant's freedom to conduct a business and right to property. They are not appropriate to achieve their objectives (and therefore are also not necessary) and, in any event, impose burdens that very significantly outweigh any possible benefits.

      (1)  Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP of 8 September 2014 amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia's actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014, L 271, p. 54).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EU) No 960/2014 of 8 September 2014 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia's actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014, L 271, p. 3).

      (3)  Council and Commission Decision of 30 October 1997 on the conclusion of the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Russian Federation, of the other part (OJ 1997, L 327, p. 1).