title: Case C-403/10 P: Appeal brought on 6 August 2010 by Mediaset SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 15 June 2010 in Case T-177/07: Mediaset SpA v European Commission, supported by Sky Italia Srl

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/8

         Appeal brought on 6 August 2010 by Mediaset SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 15 June 2010 in Case T-177/07: Mediaset SpA v European Commission, supported by Sky Italia Srl
   (Case C-403/10 P)
   ()
   2010/C 301/11
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Mediaset SpA (represented by: K. Adamantopoulos, Dikigoros and G. Rossi, avvocato)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Sky Italia Srl

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 15 June 2010 in Case T-177/07;

               —

               Give final judgment on the dispute by annulling the European Commission Decision that was contested at first instance; or, in the alternative, remit the case to the General Court; and

               —

               Order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant and the intervener at first instance.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               The Appellant submits that: the General Court (‘the GC’) committed a twofold error in law in considering the Appellant's references to the scope of Article 4 (1) of Italian Law no. 350/2003, as well as the Appellant's plea on the difference between the concepts of (i) selectivity pursuant to Article 107 (1) TFEU and (ii) discrimination, which is distinct from technological neutrality, as being inadmissible. As a result, the GC committed a manifest error in law by legally characterising the Italian Law as not technologically neutral.

               2.

               The GC erred in law when applying Article 107 (1) TFEU by assuming that the alleged ‘not technologically neutral’ nature of the Italian Law necessarily conferred a selective economic advantage upon the Appellant. In addition, the GC committed an error in law by holding that the Defendant was right to find the existence of an economic benefit to Mediaset, when it failed (like the Defendant) to legally categorize an abstract — and solely assumed — ‘enlarged audience’ and ‘low cost market penetration’ as a specific economic advantage to Mediaset. The GC also provided an inadequate statement of reasons contrary to Article 36 of the Statute and manifestly distorted the facts and erred in law by proceeding with a false and distortive reading of the Contested Decision in recitals 62 to 68 and 74 to 79 of the Judgement. Indeed, the GC erred in law because it substituted its own reasoning for that set out in the Contested Decision regarding the alleged advantage to Mediaset and interpreted evidence adduced in a manner that is at odds with the wording and analysis set out in recitals 82 to 95 of the Contested Decision and distorted the evidence. The GC also erred in law regarding the notion of ‘indirect beneficiary’ and its application and legal categorization in the present case.

               3.

               Moreover, the GC committed an error in law by completely failing to assess the distinct pleas set out in paragraphs 93 to 96, on the one hand, and 121 to 129, on the other, of the Application in relation to the compatibility assessment of the Italian Law pursuant to Article 107 (3) (c) TFEU. In this respect, the GC also failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons. Furthermore, the GC erred in law when applying Article 107 (3) (c) TFEU, by declaring the Italian Law incompatible with the Common Market, as a result, and merely because of an alleged non-respect of the principle of technological neutrality arising from the alleged exclusion of satellite decoders from its benefits, quod non; and by approving the Defendant's failure to legally assess the distortive effects of the measure on the Pay TV market, through performing a proper legal, economic and balancing test of: a) the specific distortions of competition on the Pay-TV market; and b) the claimed efficiencies of the economic advantage. The latter was merely assumed in the first place and held incompatible with the Common Market because allegedly it is not technologically neutral. In addition, the GC erred in law and proceeded with an incorrect statement of reasons when dismissing the Third Plea of the Application. Not only did the GC incorrectly present and misread the relevant plea and arguments on the contradictory reasoning of the Contested Decision, but it also failed to examine such arguments and, therefore, erroneously dismissed them as unfounded.

               4.

               Finally, the GC erred in law when applying Article 14 of Regulation 659/1999 (1) by failing to consider that the flaws of the Contested Decision regarding the economic advantage allegedly conferred upon the Appellant made it effectively impossible for the alleged State aid to be recovered, in breach of the principle of legal certainty. The Contested Decision was thus left without an efficient and transparent remedy and without a sound recovery methodology. In addition, the GC misread the pleas of the Appellant in this respect and erred in law when considering that the Contested Decision allowed the previous situation to be restored.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty
   OJ L 83, p. 1


title: Case C-33/10: Action brought on 20 January 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Denmark

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/16

         Action brought on 20 January 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Denmark
   (Case C-33/10)
   2010/C 113/24
   Language of the case: Danish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro, H. Støvlbæk, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Denmark

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by not adopting all the measures necessary to ensure that by, 30 October 2007, all permits were reconsidered and, where necessary, updated, the Kingdom of Denmark has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/1/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control;

               —

               order Kingdom of Denmark to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Article 5(1) of the Directive requires all Member States to enact measures with a view to implementing a permit and/or review procedure for existing installations by 30 October 2007. That time-limit applies without exception and the Directive does not allow the Member States to rely on exceptional circumstances as grounds for not complying with the obligation.
   It is not sufficient that measures have been adopted in Denmark with a view to ensuring closure of all cases relating to compliance with Article 5(1) of the Directive by the end of 2009. Nor can delays resulting from the municipal reform of 1 January 2007 be accorded any weight in the assessment of whether Denmark has complied with its obligations under Article 5(1). The time-limit laid down for legalising installations expired on 30 October 2007 and was notified to Member States as early as 22 September 2005. Denmark has thus had a number of years in which to adopt the necessary measures to comply with the Directive.
   Denmark has not contested its failure to implement requirements for the granting of permits for existing installations. It is thus uncontested that a significant number of the eight Danish installations are operated without permits under the Directive, contrary to Article 5(1) of the Directive.

      (1)  OJ 2008 L 24, p. 8.


title: Case T-140/09: Judgment of the General Court of 14 November 2012 — Prysmian and Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Energia v Commission (Competition — Administrative procedure — Action for annulment — Acts adopted during an inspection — Intermediate measures — Inadmissibility — Decision ordering an inspection — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based — Protection of privacy — Reasonable grounds — Review by the Court.)

text:
               22.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 November 2012 — Prysmian and Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Energia v Commission
   (Case T-140/09) (1)

   (Competition - Administrative procedure - Action for annulment - Acts adopted during an inspection - Intermediate measures - Inadmissibility - Decision ordering an inspection - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Protection of privacy - Reasonable grounds - Review by the Court.)
   2012/C 399/28
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicants: Prysmian SpA (Milan, Italy) and Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Energia Srl (Milan) (represented by: A. Pappalardo, F. Russo, L. Stasi, C. Tesauro and L. Armati, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci and X. Lewis initially, then V. Di Bucci and N. von Lingen, Agents)

      Re:

   First, application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 92/2 of 9 January 2009 ordering Prysmian SpA and all companies directly or indirectly controlled by it, including Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Energia Srl, to submit to an inspection in accordance with Article 20, paragraph 4, of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 [EC] and 82 [EC] (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1) (Case COMP/39.610); secondly, request seeking that the General Court declare unlawful the decision taken by the Commission during that inspection to copy certain computer files to examine them in its offices and, thirdly, request seeking that the General Court order the Commission to abstain from using any document obtained unlawfully and to return to Prysmian and to Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Energia the documents obtained unlawfully.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission decision C(2009) 92/2 of 9 January 2009 ordering Prysmian SpA and all companies directly or indirectly controlled by it, including Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Energia Srl, to submit to an inspection in accordance with Article 20, paragraph 4, of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 [EC] and 82 [EC], in so far as it concerns electric cables other than high voltage underwater and underground electric cables and the material associated with those other cables;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders Prysmian and Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Energia to bear their own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by the European Commission;

               4.

               Orders the European Commission to bear half of its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 141, 20.6.2009.


title: Case F-48/06: Action brought on  5 May 2006  — Avanzata and Others v Commission

text:
               1.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 154/26

         Action brought on 5 May 2006 — Avanzata and Others v Commission
   (Case F-48/06)
   (2006/C 154/60)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Eric Avanzata and Others (Beggent, France) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the applicant's contracts as contractual agents, in that they fix the applicants' function groups, grades, steps and remuneration;

               —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants, who entered the service of the Commission as contract staff or workers under contracts governed by Luxembourg law, dispute their classification and remuneration as fixed by the Commission upon their appointment as contract staff posted to the Office for Infrastructure and Logistics in Luxembourg (OIL).
   In support of their action, the applicants rely on a breach of Article 80 of the Conditions of employment of other servants, a breach of Article 2 of the Annex to those conditions of employment, the illegality of the general implementing provisions of those articles and also a breach of the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination, of transparency and of sound management.
   The applicants submit first of all that the defendant adopted the general implementing provisions without obtaining the prior opinion of the Staff Regulations Committee. Furthermore, the general implementing provisions do not contain a precise description of the powers attaching to each type of duties, which makes it impossible to ascertain whether the applicants were appointed to a function group corresponding to the tasks which they perform and whether their grade was fixed in accordance with Article 80 of the conditions of employment. Nor has the defendant adduced evidence that it did in fact ascertain whether it was possible to award the applicants a supplementary grade to take account of the reality of the market, as provided for in the general implementing provisions.
   Last, the applicants contend that they are in the same situation as the staff employed in the crèches and the garderie in Brussels and recruited as contract staff in the Office for Infrastructure and Logistics in Brussels with a guarantee that their remuneration would be maintained. The defendant has not shown for what reasons such a guarantee was not given to the applicants.


title: Action brought on 15 November 1996 by Partex, Companhia Portuguesa de Serviços, SA, against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-182/96)

text:
25 . 1 . 97          I EN I                Official Journal of the European Communities                                         No C 26/9
Action brought on 15 November 1996 by Partex,                                certain expenditure submitted by the applicant does
Companhia Portuguesa de Servifos, SA, against the                            not fulfil the conditions laid down in the approval
           Commission of the European Communities                            decision, without such factual and legal 'reasons ' ever
                        ( Case T-l 82/96 )
                                                                             being identified, specified or explained. The contested
                                                                             decision does not therefore provide a full and
                           ( 97/C 26/ 16 )                                   adequate statement of reasons and does not fulfil the
                                                                             requirement imposed by Article 190 of the Treaty,
               (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                                                                      — Infringement of the legislation on the European Social
                                                                             Fund: The applicant claims that, in the present case,
An action against the Commission of the European                             the training operations were carried out between
Communities was brought before the Court of First                            1 January 1988 and 21 December 1988 and that the
Instance of the European Communities on 15 November                          relevant final payment claim, after having been duly
1996 by Partex, Companhia Portuguesa de Servi^os, SA,                        certified by the Portuguese State, was sent to the
whose registered office is at Av. 5 de Outubro 160,                          Commission on 30 October 1989, and the Portuguese
represented by Rui Chancerelle de Machete, Pedro                             State,   before     certification,       did not inform  the
Machete and Miguel Pena Machete, of the Lisbon Bar,                          Commission that any investigations had been
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                             undertaken because of supposed irregularities found in
Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 rue du Fort Rheinsheim, L                      the management of the training operations. According
2419 Luxembourg.                                                             to the applicable Community legislation Council
                                                                             Regulation (EEC) No 2950/83 of 17 October 1983 on
                                                                             the implementation of Decision 83/516/EEC on the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  tasks of the European Social Fund 0 ) and Commission
                                                                             Decision 83/673/EEC of 22 December 1983 on the
                                                                             management of the European Social Fund ( 2) after a
— annul Commission Decision C(96 ) 1184 of 14 August                         final payment claim has been certified and forwarded
     1996 approving the final payment claim relating to                      to the Commission, the Member State no longer has a
     ESF File 880412 P3 , inasmuch as it refuses to pay the                  power of initiative or competence with regard to that
     balance of the assistance applied for amounting to                      claim; from that point on, the Commission alone may
     Esc 146 321 461 and imposes a reduction of that                         put in motion on its own initiative any further checks.
     amount to Esc 49 792 986 and the consequent                             Since there was no notification by the Commission to
     repayment to the Commission of Esc 14 730 539,                          the Member State in due time, it can only be
                                                                             concluded that the decision of the Portuguese State to
                                                                             re-examine file 880412 P3 , to which the contested
                                                                             decision refers, was unlawful. In accepting that
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                     unlawful procedure by the Portuguese State, the
                                                                             defendant institution infringed the legislation on the
                                                                             European Social Fund, and that illegality also vitiates
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                          the contested decision,
The      contested  decision     concerns  the  final  decision
                                                                      — Abuse of rights and breach of the rights of the
approving the final payment claim relating to the                            defence, of the principles of good faith, of the
application for financial assistance from the European                       protection of legitimate expectations and of acquired
Social Fund file 880412 P3 , granted to the applicant. By                    rights, inasmuch as the Community decision was taken
its decision the Commission decided to reduce the amount
                                                                             nearly seven years after certification and forwarding of
approved by Commission Decision C(88 ) 0831 of 29 April                      the final payment claim,
1988 on the granting to the applicant of assistance
amounting to Esc 146 321 461 for the financing in
Portugal of vocational training operations.
                                                                      — Misuse of powers: Contrary to the ground to which
                                                                             the defendant institution refers, it was not the
The applicant maintains that the contested act is unlawful                    application of 'reckonable-cost criteria ' which was the
and should be annulled on the following grounds :                             reason for implementing the contested act, but the
                                                                              unlawful attempt to regularize a posteriori the
                                                                              unlawful procedure of the Portuguese State, which
                                                                              constitutes misuse of powers .
— Breach of the obligation to state reasons: The
     statement of reasons provided in the text of the
     contested decision essentially states that the                   ( x ) Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2950/83 of 17 October 1983
     Commission does not accept part of the expenditure                     ( OJ No L 289 , 22 . 10 . 1983 , p . 1 ).
     submitted 'on the grounds set out in letter No 4085 of           (2 ) OJ No L 377 , 31 . 12 . 1983 , p. 1 .
     30 March 1995 and annexes thereto sent by the
     Member State' (a letter of which the applicant has no
     knowledge ) and that the Commission considers that


title: Case C-227/15 P: Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 April 2016 — Jean-Marie Cahier and Others v Council of the European Union, European Commission, French Republic Appeal — Non-contractual liability of the European Union — Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 — Article 28(1) — Compulsory distillation of the quantities of wine obtained from dual-purpose vine varieties produced in excess of the normal quantity and not exported outside the Union — Regulation (EC) No 1623/2000 — Distillation carried out by the producer himself in his capacity as distiller — Production of spirits with designation of origin

text:
               1.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/3

         Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 April 2016 — Jean-Marie Cahier and Others v Council of the European Union, European Commission, French Republic
   (Case C-227/15 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Non-contractual liability of the European Union - Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 - Article 28(1) - Compulsory distillation of the quantities of wine obtained from dual-purpose vine varieties produced in excess of the normal quantity and not exported outside the Union - Regulation (EC) No 1623/2000 - Distillation carried out by the producer himself in his capacity as distiller - Production of spirits with designation of origin)
   (2016/C 279/04)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellants: Jean-Marie Cahier, Robert Aubineau, Laurent Bigot, Pascal Bourdeau, Jacques Brard-Blanchard, Olivier Charruaud, Daniel Chauvet, Régis Chauvet, Fabrice Compagnon, Francis Crepeau, Philippe Davril, Bernard Deborde, Chantal Goulard, Jean-Pierre Gourdet, Bernard Goursaud, Jean Gravouil, Guy Herbelot, Rodrigue Herbelot, Sophie Landrit, Michel Mallet, Michel Merlet, Alain Phelipon, Claude Potut, Philippe Pruleau, Philippe Riche, Françoise Rousseau, René Roy, Pascale Rulleaud-Beaufour (represented by: C.-É. Gudin, avocat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Barbagallo and É. Sitbon, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: I. Galindo Martín and B. Schima, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, D. Colas and S. Ghiandoni, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dimissed.

               2.

               Messrs Jean-Marie Cahier, Robert Aubineau, Laurent Bigot, Pascal Bourdeau, Jacques Brard-Blanchard, Olivier Charruaud, Daniel Chauvet, Régis Chauvet, Fabrice Compagnon, Francis Crepeau, Philippe Davril, Bernard Deborde, Ms Chantal Goulard, Messrs Jean-Pierre Gourdet, Bernard Goursaud, Jean Gravouil, Guy Herbelot, Rodrigue Herbelot, Ms Sophie Landrit, Messrs Michel Mallet, Michel Merlet, Alain Phelipon, Claude Potut, Philippe Pruleau, Philippe Riche, Ms Françoise Rousseau, Mr René Roy and Ms Pascale Rulleaud-Beaufour shall bear their own costs and shall pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union and the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 311 of 21.9.2015.


title: Joined Cases C-175/08, C-176/08, C-178/08 and C-179/08: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 March 2010 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Aydin Salahadin Abdulla (C-175/08), Kamil Hasan (C-176/08), Ahmed Adem, Hamrin Mosa Rashi (C-178/08), Dler Jamal (C-179/08) v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Directive 2004/83/EC — Minimum standards for determining who qualifies for refugee status or for subsidiary protection status — Classification as a refugee — Article 2(c) — Cessation of refugee status — Article 11 — Change of circumstances — Article 11(1)(e) — Refugee — Unfounded fear of persecution — Assessment — Article 11(2) — Revocation of refugee status — Proof — Article 14(2))

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/4

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 March 2010 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Aydin Salahadin Abdulla (C-175/08), Kamil Hasan (C-176/08), Ahmed Adem, Hamrin Mosa Rashi (C-178/08), Dler Jamal (C-179/08) v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
   (Joined Cases C-175/08, C-176/08, C-178/08 and C-179/08) (1)

   (Directive 2004/83/EC - Minimum standards for determining who qualifies for refugee status or for subsidiary protection status - Classification as a ‘refugee’ - Article 2(c) - Cessation of refugee status - Article 11 - Change of circumstances - Article 11(1)(e) - Refugee - Unfounded fear of persecution - Assessment - Article 11(2) - Revocation of refugee status - Proof - Article 14(2))
   2010/C 113/06
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Aydin Salahadin Abdulla (C-175/08), Kamil Hasan (C-176/08), Ahmed Adem, Hamrin Mosa Rashi (C-178/08), Dler Jamal (C-179/08),

      Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

      Re:

   References for a preliminary ruling — Bundesvewaltungsgericht — Interpretation of Article 11(1) (e) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted (OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12) — Decisions of the national authority putting an end to the refugee status of the parties concerned solely on the basis of the finding that their fear of persecution no longer exists, without examining additional conditions concerning the political situation in their country of origin — Iraqi citizens whose refugee status was withdrawn following the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 11(1)(e) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted must be interpreted as meaning that:

                           —

                           refugee status ceases to exist when, having regard to a change of circumstances of a significant and non-temporary nature in the third country concerned, the circumstances which justified the person’s fear of persecution for one of the reasons referred to in Article 2(c) of Directive 2004/83, on the basis of which refugee status was granted, no longer exist and that person has no other reason to fear being ‘persecuted’ within the meaning of Article 2(c) of Directive 2004/83;

                           —

                           for the purposes of assessing a change of circumstances, the competent authorities of the Member State must verify, having regard to the refugee’s individual situation, that the actor or actors of protection referred to in Article 7(1) of Directive 2004/83 have taken reasonable steps to prevent the persecution, that they therefore operate, inter alia, an effective legal system for the detection, prosecution and punishment of acts constituting persecution and that the national concerned will have access to such protection if he ceases to have refugee status;

                           —

                           the actors of protection referred to in Article 7(1)(b) of Directive 2004/83 may comprise international organisations controlling the State or a substantial part of the territory of the State, including by means of the presence of a multinational force in that territory.

               2.

               When the circumstances which resulted in the granting of refugee status have ceased to exist and the competent authorities of the Member State verify that there are no other circumstances which could justify a fear of persecution on the part of the person concerned either for the same reason as that initially at issue or for one of the other reasons set out in Article 2(c) of Directive 2004/83, the standard of probability used to assess the risk stemming from those other circumstances is the same as that applied when refugee status was granted.

               3.

               In so far as it provides indications as to the scope of the evidential value to be attached to previous acts or threats of persecution, Article 4(4) of Directive 2004/83 may apply when the competent authorities plan to withdraw refugee status under Article 11(1)(e) of that directive and the person concerned, in order to demonstrate that there is still a well-founded fear of persecution, relies on circumstances other than those as a result of which he was recognised as being a refugee. However, that may normally be the case only when the reason for persecution is different from that accepted at the time when refugee status was granted and only when there are earlier acts or threats of persecution which are connected with the reason for persecution being examined at that stage.

      (1)  OJ C 197, 2.8.2008.

      OJ C 180, 1.8.2009.


C 302/24              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                21.10.2000
       Removal from the register of Case C-445/98 (1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-338/99 (1)
                       (2000/C 302/60)
                                                                                (2000/C 302/61)
By order of 12 July 2000, the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-445/98 (Reference for a preliminary           By order of 13 July 2000 the President of the Sixth Chamber
ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg):           of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has
Bayram Ali Lotoz v Landeshauptstadt Stuttgart — Amt für              ordered the removal from the register of Case C-338/99:
öffentliche Ordnung.                                                 Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of
                                                                     Belgium.
(1) OJ C 48 of 20.2.1999.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 314 of 30.10.1999.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 20 March 1997 in Case C-323/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Saarländisches Oberlandesgericht): David Charles Hayes and Jeanette Karen Hayes v. Kronenberger GmbH, in liquidation (Equal treatment - Discrimination on grounds of nationality - Security for costs)

text:
No C 142/6              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     10 . 5 . 97
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      ( Commercial Court), Pontoise, France, for a preliminary
                          ( Sixth Chamber )                               ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
                                                                          between Phytheron International SA and Jean Bourdon SA
                        of 20 March 1997
                                                                          — on the interpretation of Articles 30 and 36 of the EC
in Case C-323/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                 Treaty — the Court ( Fifth Chamber), composed of: J. C.
the Saarlandisches Oberlandesgericht): David Charles                      Moitinho de Almeida, President of the Chamber, C.
Hayes and Jeanette Karen Hayes v. Kronenberger GmbH,                      Gulmann ( Rapporteur ), D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet
                          in liquidation ( ! )                            and M. Wathelet, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General;
                                                                          H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has
(Equal treatment — Discrimination on grounds of                           given a judgment on 20 March 1997, in which it has
                nationality — Security for costs)                         ruled :
                            ( 97/C 142/11 )
                                                                          Article 7 of the First Council Directive (89/104/EEC) of
                (Language of the case: German)                            21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                          Member States relating to trade marks is to be interpreted
                                                                          as precluding application of a national rule in Member
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                          State A under which the owner of a trade mark may
In Case C-323/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177               prevent importation of a product protected by the mark
of the EC Treaty from the Saarlandisches Oberlandesge                    where
richt ( Saarland Higher Regional Court) ( Germany), for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                 — the product has been manufactured in a non-member
court between David Charles Hayes and Jeanette Karen                           country,
Hayes, on the one hand, and Kronenberger GmbH, in
liquidation, on the other — on the interpretation of the                  — it has been imported into Member State B by the
first paragraph of Article 6 of the EC Treaty — the Court                      owner of the mark or by another company in the same
( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: G. F. Mancini, President                       group as the owner of the mark,
of the Chamber, J. L. Murray, P. J. G. Kapteyn
( Rapporteur ), G. Hirsch and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; A.                    — it has been lawfully acquired in Member State B by an
La Pergola, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has                         independent trader, who has exported it to Member
given a judgment on 20 March 1997, in which it has                             State A,
ruled :
                                                                          — it has not been processed and the packaging has not
Article 6 of the EC Treaty must be interpreted as
                                                                               been changed, apart from the addition to the label of
precluding a Member State from requiring security for                          certain information to comply with the requirements
costs to be furnished by a national of another Member                          of the legislation of the Member State of import, and
State who has brought an action in one of its civil courts
against one of its nationals where that requirement may
                                                                          — the trade mark rights are held in Member States A and
not be imposed on its own nationals who have neither
                                                                               B by the same group.
assets nor a residence in that country, in a situation where
 the action is connected with the exercise of fundamental
                                                                           O OJ No C 351 , 30 . 12 . 1995 .
freedoms guaranteed by Community law.
 (') OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                             (Fifth Chamber)
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                                       of 20 March 1997
                         of 20 March 1997
                                                                          in Case C-13/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
in Case C-352/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                 the Belgian Conseil d'Etat): Bic Benelux SA v. Belgian
 the Tribunal de Commerce, Pontoise ): Phytheron                                                        State (')
            International SA v. Jean Bourdon SA ( l )                      (Obligation to give prior notification under Directive 83/
 (Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty — Trade Mark                         189/EEC — Technical regulations and specifications —
 Directive — Plant health product — Parallel import —                          Marking of products subject to environmental tax)
                               Exhaustion)
                                                                                ( 97/C 142/ 13 )
                             ( 97/C 142/12 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                 (Language of the case: French)
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           published in the European Court Reports)                                 published in the European Court Reports)
 In Case C-352/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177               In Case C-13/96 : reference to the Court under Article 177
 of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal de Commerce                            of the EC Treaty from the Belgian Conseil d'Etat ( Council


title: Case T-556/14 P: Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Navarro v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Members of the contract staff — Recruitment — Call for expressions of interest — Minimum qualifications required — Refusal to offer employment — Infringement of Article 116(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal — Error of law — Distortion of the facts)

text:
               20.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/41

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Navarro v Commission
   (Case T-556/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil service - Members of the contract staff - Recruitment - Call for expressions of interest - Minimum qualifications required - Refusal to offer employment - Infringement of Article 116(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal - Error of law - Distortion of the facts))
   (2015/C 236/55)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Victor Navarro (Sterrebeek, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Blot, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Berscheid, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 21 May 2014 in Navarro v Commission (F-46/13, ECR-SC, EU:F:2014:104) and seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Mr Victor Navarro to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 351, 6.10.2014.


title: Case C-396/05 and C-419/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Berlin by judgments of that court of  27 September 2005  in Doris Habelt (C-396/05) and Martha Möser (C-419/05) v Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund

text:
               28.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Berlin by judgments of that court of 27 September 2005 in Doris Habelt (C-396/05) and Martha Möser (C-419/05) v Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund
   (Case C-396/05 and C-419/05)
   (2006/C 22/11)
   Language of the case: German
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by judgments of the Sozialgericht Berlin of 27 September 2005, received at the Court Registry on 14 and 28 November 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Doris Habelt (C-396/05) and Martha Möser (C-419/05) and Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund on the following question:
   Is the provision in Annex VI. D. (formerly C.) Germany No 1 to Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (Regulation 1408/71) compatible with higher-ranking European law, particularly the principle of freedom of movement — in this case, the principle of the exportability of benefits under Article 42 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (EC) — inasmuch as it rules out also pension benefits in respect of contribution periods completed in the territory of the former German Reich?

      (1)  OJ, English Special Edition, 1971 (II), p. 416.


title: Case T-423/17: Action brought on 11 July 2017 — Nexans France and Nexans v. Commission

text:
               11.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/31

         Action brought on 11 July 2017 — Nexans France and Nexans v. Commission
   (Case T-423/17)
   (2017/C 300/39)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Nexans France (Courbevoie, France) and Nexans (Courbevoie) (represented by: M. Powell and A. Rogers, Solicitors, and G. Forwood, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Decision C(2017) 3051 final of 2 May 2017 on a request for confidential treatment submitted by Nexans France and Nexans pursuant to Article 8 of Decision 2011/695/EU of the President of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings (Case AT.39610 — Power Cables) in so far as it rejects the Applicants’ confidentiality claims as regards the material that they claim in Case T-449/14 was obtained illegally (so-called ‘Category I Claims’), and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicants’ costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to state sufficient reasons, contrary to Article 296 TFEU, Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, as well as Article 8(2) of Decision 2011/695/EU.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in assessing the applicants’ claim under Article 8(2) of Decision 2011/695: firstly, in finding that some of the contested material was already known beyond a limited number of persons; secondly, in failing to take due account of the principle of effective judicial protection; and thirdly, in finding that the applicants’ interests are not worthy of protection

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached the principle of the presumption of innocence, in view of the fact that the legality of the method by which the contested material was obtained is contested in the pending action Case T-449/14. Publication of the contested material would deprive any annulment in that case of its full effect.


title: Case T-238/08: Judgment of the General Court of 7 December 2010 — Commission v Commune de Valbonne (Arbitration clause — Research and training contract relating to a mutual education project between the city of Valbonne (France) and the province of Ascoli Piceno (Italy) — Application for reimbursement of advance payments)

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/35

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 December 2010 — Commission v Commune de Valbonne
   (Case T-238/08) (1)

   (Arbitration clause - Research and training contract relating to a mutual education project between the city of Valbonne (France) and the province of Ascoli Piceno (Italy) - Application for reimbursement of advance payments)
   2011/C 30/61
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: initially, L. Escobar Guerrero, and subsequently, F. Dintilhac and A. Sauka, agents, and E. Bouttier, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commune de Valbonne (France) (represented by: B. Rapp-Jung, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action based on an arbitration clause in accordance with Article 238 EC seeking an order that the Commune de Valbonne reimburse advance payments made by the European Commission, together with late-payment interest, in connection with Contract Valaspi MM 1027 of 29 December 1997.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 30.8.2008.


title: Case C-21/06: Action brought on  17 January 2006  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/29

         Action brought on 17 January 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-21/06)
   (2006/C 60/56)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 January 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Michel Nolin, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2004/103/EC of 7 October 2004 on identity and plant health checks of plants, plant products or other objects, listed in Part B of Annex V to Council Directive 2000/29/EC, which may be carried out at a place other than the point of entry into the Community or at a place close by and specifying the conditions related to these checks (1) or, in any event, by not communicating the provisions in question to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposition of the directive expired on 31 December 2004.

      (1)  OJ L 313 of 12.10.2004, p. 16.


title: Case F-81/06: Action brought on 21 July 2006 — Duyster v Commission

text:
               28.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/34

         Action brought on 21 July 2006 — Duyster v Commission
   (Case F-81/06)
   (2006/C 261/70)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Tineke Duyster (Oetrange, Luxembourg) (represented by: W.H.A.M. van den Muijsenbergh, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               declare the appeal inadmissible in its entirety;

               —

               annul the decisions of the Appointing Authority of 8 November 2005 and of 11 May 2006;

               —

               grant the applicant damages for the loss suffered;

               —

               in the alternative, grant wholly or in part the forms of order sought above or adopt a decision granting the applicant's requests of 5 and 13 July 2005;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In Cases F-51/06 (1) and F-18/06 (2), the applicant has already challenged the fact that the Commission first granted her parental leave in respect of the period from 1 November 2004 to 30 April 2005 and then, by letter of 17 November 2005, fixed the starting date of her parental leave at 8 November 2004.
   In this case, the applicant challenges the decisions by which the Commission rejected as inadmissible her requests submitted in order to obtain damages under Article 288 EC and Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations of Officials, concerning approximately 50 objections relating to allegedly negligent acts committed by the Commission's departments.
   In support of her action against the decisions of inadmissibility, the applicant alleges, inter alia: (i) that the decisions were based on incorrect facts (ii) infringement of the content and rationale of Article 90(1) and (2) of the Staff Regulations; (iii) that the decisions are contradictory; (iv) that the decisions lack clarity; (v) that the Appointing Authority is incorrectly interpreting and/or applying the case-law relating to Article 288 EC and Article 90 of the Staff Regulations; (vi) that the Appointing Authority uses misconceived arguments; (vii) infringement of the principles of proportionality, the protection of legitimate expectations, equal treatment and legal certainty, and infringement of the principle that different interests must be weighed against each other, failure to observe the employer's duty to provide information, and infringement of the principle of sound administration and the right to a legal remedy.

      (1)  OJ C 217, 3.9.2005 (case initially registered before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under number T-249/05 and transferred to the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union by Order of 15.12.2005).

      (2)  OJ C 154, 1.7.2006


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 8 August 2000 in Case T-159/00, Suproco NV against the Commission of the European Communities (Application for interim measures — Safeguard measure — Sugar sector products with EC/OCT cumulation of origin)

text:
25.11.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 335/43
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt and                       1.    The operation of Regulation No 465/2000 of 29 February
Medernach, 8-10, rue Mathias Hardt, against Commission of                       2000 introducing safeguard measures for imports from the
the European Communities (Agents: M.-J. Jonczy and                              overseas countries and territories of sugar sector products with
M. E. Paasivirta) — application for suspension of the operation                 EC/OCT cumulation of origin is suspended as regards the
of, first, the Commission’s decision to terminate the contract                  applicant;
with the applicant relating to the DIONYSOS project in so far
as it requires the applicant to repay all of the sums already             2.    The quantity of sugar sector products with EC/OCT cumulation
paid over and, secondly, of the debit note sent pursuant to the                 of origin which may be imported by the applicant into the
decision in so far as necessary — the President of the Court of                 Community up to 30 September 2000 is 400 tonnes;
First Instance made an order on 20 July 2000, the operative
part of which is as follows:                                              3.    The Commission shall determine the procedure to which imports
                                                                                of those products are to be subject;
1.    The application for interim measures is dismissed.
                                                                          4.    Costs are reserved.
2.    The costs are reserved.
                                                                          ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                                                                                INSTANCE
                                                                                of 20 July 2000
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                              in Case T-169/00 R: Esedra SPRL v Commission of the
                              INSTANCE                                                         European Communities
                         of 8 August 2000                                 (Public contracts for the supply of services — Community
                                                                          tendering procedure — Proceedings for interim measures —
                                                                                Suspension of operation — Urgency — None)
in Case T-159/00, Suproco NV against the Commission of
                  the European Communities                                                          (2000/C 335/82)
(Application for interim measures — Safeguard measure —                                       (Language of the case: French)
 Sugar sector products with EC/OCT cumulation of origin)
                                                                          In Case T-169/00 R: Esedra SPRL, established in Brussels,
                                                                          represented by G. Vandersanden, E. Gillet and L. Levi, of the
                          (2000/C 335/81)                                 Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                          office of Société de Gestion Fiduciaire SARL, 2-4 Rue Beck, v
                                                                          Commission of the European Communities (Agents: X. Lewis
                                                                          and L. Parpala) — application, first, for suspension of operation
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                         of the Commission’s decisions not to award to the applicant the
                                                                          contract forming the subject-matter of Notice No 99/S 132-
                                                                          97515/FR for services relating to the management of a day
In Case T-159/00 R, Suproco NV, established in Curaçao,                   nursery and to award that contract to another undertaking
Netherlands Antilles, represented by R.J. van Agteren and                 and, second, for a mandatory injunction requiring the Com-
M.M. Slotboom, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address for                  mission to take the necessary steps in order to suspend
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 11 Rue                implementation of that contract or of any contract concluded
Goethe, v Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                 in pursuance of that decision — the President of the Court of
T. van Rijn and C. Van der Hauwaert) — application for                    First Instance made an order on 20 July 2000, the operative
suspension of the operation of Regulation No 465/2000 of                  part of which is as follows:
29 February 2000 introducing safeguard measures for imports
from the overseas countries and territories of sugar sector               1.    The application for interim measures is dismissed.
products with EC/OCT cumulation of origin (OJ 2000 L 56,
p. 39) or any other form of interim measure capable of                    2.    The costs are reserved.
protecting the applicant’s interests — the President of the
Court of First Instance made an order on 8 August 2000, the
operative part of which is as follows:


title: Case C-74/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 10 February 2017 — Jonathan Heintges v German Wings GmbH

text:
               15.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/17

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 10 February 2017 — Jonathan Heintges v German Wings GmbH
   (Case C-74/17)
   (2017/C 151/22)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Jonathan Heintges

      Defendant: German Wings GmbH

      Questions referred

               I.

               Is Article 12(1) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the ‘rights to further compensation’ referred to therein cover only claims which are based on grounds which lie outside that regulation?

               II.

                           (a)

                           If Question I. is answered in the negative, is Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 to be interpreted as meaning that, in the event that an airline does not provide the services provided for under Article 8(1) and (2), that provision gives rise to a separate claim for compensation on the part of the passenger by reason of the non-performance of the aforementioned services and, if so, does that claim also cover the reimbursement of the costs of alternative transportation organised by the passenger himself to his final destination?

                           (aa)

                           If the answer to Question (a) is affirmative, is the claim for compensation relating to the replacement transportation organised by the passenger himself subject to the deduction under the second sentence of Article 12(1) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004?

                           (b)

                           If Question I. is answered in the affirmative and national law contains a rule under which a passenger has a claim against an airline, on the ground of breach of the obligation under Article 8 of the regulation, for reimbursement of the costs incurred by him by reason of the fact that he organised replacement transportation himself, is that claim for compensation under national law subject to the deduction under the second sentence of Article 12(1) of the regulation?

                           (c)

                           If a deduction under the second sentence of Article 12(1) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 is affirmed, either in the context of Question II (a) or Question II (b), is Article 12 to be interpreted as meaning that the deduction automatically applies without it being necessary for the party obliged to pay the compensation to invoke that deduction?

      (1)  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, OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.


title: Action brought on 15 January 1996 by S against the Court of Justice of the European Communities (Case T-4/96)

text:
16 . 3 . 96           I EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 77/ 15
to the compatibility of an aid with the functioning of the          Action brought on 15 January 1996 by S against the Court
common market . It is clear from the substantive rules                        of Justice of the European Communities
referred to, and from the fact that exclusive powers are                                     ( Case T-4/96
conferred on the Commission , that the adjectival rules
under Article 93 ( 3 ) make it incumbent on the Member                                         ( 96/C 77/34 )
States to notify the Commission, before approval and
implementation within the Member State concerned, of any                            (Language of the case: French)
plans to grant aid which they intend adopting. In the event
of the Member States not observing the notification                 An action against the Court of Justice of the European
requirement, the prohibition of implementation of the               Communities was brought before the Court of First
measures concerned is fully effective domestically; that rule       Instance of the European Communities on 15 January 1996
can thus be relied on by a competitor before the national           by S, represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi,
courts if national procedural law provides means for                of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
challenging the aid granted, but the national courts must           Luxembourg at the office of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 1 Rue
confine themselves to ensuring the effectiveness of the             Glesener .
prohibition pending the Commission's final decision. By
virtue of those rules, the Commission is under a duty to give       The applicant claims that the Court should :
a decision as to the compatibility with the common market
of unnotified aid measures which have come to its notice in         — annul the decision of the Court of Justice of the
the mean time, in particular when it has been informed of               European Communities, in its capacity of appointing
their existence by a complaint lodged by a competitor of the            authority, of 11 April 1995 , in so far as it applies an
recipient of the aid.                                                   invalidity rate of 6 % for calculating the sum referred to
                                                                        in Article 73 of the Staff Regulations,
The applicant considers that in this case the Commission            — recognize the applicant's entitlement to the sum
was informed, by means of the complaint submitted, of the               provided for in Article 73 of the Staff Regulations,
adoption and implementation in Portugal of aid measures in              calculated on the basis of a rate of invalidity of 30% ,
favour of RTP, approved by the Government, without
fulfilment of the duty of notification . This means that the        — annul, in so far as necessary, the decision rejecting the
Commission should, within a reasonable period, have                     applicant's complaint, taken on 2 October 1995 and
adopted one of two decisions : either one approving the                 notified on 16 October 1995 ,
measures in question, after giving the Portuguese authorities
an apportunity to submit their observations, in the event of        — order the defendant to pay the costs .
its immediately coming to the view that the measures are
compatible with the common market; or a decision to                 Pleas in law and main arguments:
initiate an investigative procedure under Article 93 ( 2 ) in the
event of its being unable, on the basis of a straightforward        The applicant, a pensioned official of grade LA 6 at the
preliminary analysis, to consider such measures compatible          Court of Justice, challenges the method of calculation of the
with the common market. The Commission took neither                 sum referred to in Article 73 of the Staff Regulations, which
course, still being engaged in its preliminary examination          she claims is based on an incorrect rate of invalidity .
after two-and-a-half years .
                                                                    The contested decision was adopted on the basis of two
                                                                    medical reports from the medical committee, according to
The fact that the Commission did not express a view, at the         which the applicant has a permanent partial invalidity of
preliminary stage, undermines the applicant's rights, the           30 % , 20 % of which arose in the course of the performance
latter being prevented from securing judicial protection to         by the applicant of her duties in the defendant
safeguard its legitimate interests. Accordingly, the                institution .
applicant, on 1 1 August 1995, called on the Commission to
act: it sent a letter requiring the Commission, under and for       The applicant argues firstly that there has been a breach of
the purposes of Article 175 of the EC Treaty, to give a             Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and of Articles 3 ( 2 ) and
decision on the complaint submitted, in particular the              12 ( 2 ) of the Rules and the scale of rates of invalidity
request that a procedure be commenced under                         annexed thereto . She considers that when a disease or the
Article 93 ( 2 ). The Commission replied, albeit outside the        aggravation of a disease arises in the course of or in
period of two months laid down in Article 175 , by letter of        connection with the performance of duties with the
16 October 1995 ; in that letter the Commission did not take        Communities, the official is entitled to benefits and it is not
any position, merely stating that it had received a study and       necessary for the work in the institutions to have been the
would seek information from the Portuguese authorities in           predominant cause of the disease .
order to analyse the situation . Consequently, the
Commission is in breach of its obligation to adopt a measure        The applicant also submits that once the causal link had
defining its position on the complaint submitted to it by the       been established and the rate of permanent invalidity fixed
applicant.                                                          at 30 % , the defendant was in breach of Article 73 ( 2 ) ( c ) of
                                                                    the Staff Regulations and Articles 3 ( 2 ) and 12 ( 2 ) of the
                                                                    Rules and of the scale of rates of invalidity annexed thereto
                                                                    by taking a rate of 6 % into consideratioin for calculation of
                                                                    the sum in question .
 ---pagebreak--- No C 77/ 16           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      16 . 3 . 96
The applicant considers that the medical committee 's                responsible for more than 10 years, takes issue with the
reports are unlawful in so far as once the committee had             rejection of his application for the vacant post of
established a direct link between the disease and the                Director-General of DG J. He contends that one reason why
performance of an occupational activity, it had exhausted its        his application was unsuccessful lies in the need to have
task; the committee's breakdown in percentage terms of the           regard for a geographical balance in management posts
various factors which contributed to the emergence of the            within the institution .
applicant's disease exceeded the scope of the question
referred to it and had no basis in the Staff Regulations .           The applicant first of all claims that there has been a breach
                                                                     of Articles 4 and 29 ( 1 ) of the Staff Regulations inasmuch as
The applicant asserts, finally, that the method of calculation       the contested decisions were taken without prior
used by the defendant infringes the principle of equality.           consultation of the Permanent Representatives Committee.
Firstly, she is discriminated against in comparison with             In the present case, he argues, the Council was notified only
other persons less vulnerable to certain working conditions,         of the proposal by the Secretary-General, which merely
whereas every official must be recognized as fit for work at         refers to the list of posts for the 1995 budgetary year and to
the medical examination before recruitment. Secondly, the            the expediency of appointing the candidate who was
lack of provision in the applicable Community rules as to            ultimately successful to Grade A 1 with effect from 1 June
the method to be followed for evaluating the factors which           1995 , without reference to a specific post. It thus appears
may have led to the emergence of the occupational disease in         that :
itself constitutes a source of discrimination .
                                                                     — the appointing authority, which was not informed of
                                                                         either the list of officials who had applied for the post at
                                                                         issue or of the qualifications required for that post, did
                                                                         not even have the opportunity itself to consider the
                                                                         comparative merits of candidates, as required under
                                                                         Article 45 of the Staff Regulations,
Action brought on 16 January 1996 by Themistocles
 Contargyris against the Council of the European Union              — the Council adopted a decision of appointment which
                        ( Case T-6/96 )                                  was not designed, under the conditions laid down in the
                                                                         Staff Regulations, to fill a vacancy in a specific post,
                          ( 96/C 77/35 )
                                                                    — the decisions rejecting the applicant's candidature and
                (Language of the case: French)                           dismissing his complaint were unlawfully adopted by the
                                                                         Secretary-General, since the appointing authority's
                                                                         powers to fill the post at issue could lawfully be exercised
An action against the Council of the European Union was                  only by the Council .
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 16 January 1996 by Themistocles                      The applicant also takes the view that the terms in which the
Contargyris, residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noel          notice of vacancy in question was drafted were general and
Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the                   did not enable the appointing authority to consider the
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at          comparative merits of the various candidates . He also claims
the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 1 Rue Glesener.               that the Secretary-General breached Articles 7 and 27 of the
                                                                     Staff Regulations by treating the need to establish a
The applicant claims that the Court should :                        geographical balance as a determinant criterion.
— annul the decision rejecting his application for the               Finally, the applicant claims that there has been a breach of
    Grade A 1 post in DG J 'Economic and Social                     the duty to state reasons as well as misuse of powers in this
                                                                    case .
    Cohesion, Regional Policy, Social Policy, Employment,
    Social Dialogue, Education and Youth, Culture,
    Audio-Visual',
— annul the Council's decision appointing another
    candidate to Grade A 1 ,                                        Action brought on 22 January 1996 by Antonia Carparelli
                                                                       against the Commission of the European Communities
— annul the decision assigning that other candidate to the
    post of Director-General of DG J,                                                          ( Case T-8/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 77/36 )
— annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the
    Council of 7 November 1995 dismissing the applicant's                            (Language of the case: French)
    complaint,
                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                             Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                    Instance of the European Communities on 22 January 1996
Pleas in law and main arguments:                                     by Antonia Carparelli, residing in Brussels, represented by
                                                                    Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of
The applicant, who is a director in Directorate 1 of                the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
Directorate-General G of the Council, for which he has been          at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 1 Rue Glesener.


title: Case C-542/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle (Belgium) lodged on 17 October 2013 — Mohamed M’Bodj v Conseil des ministres

text:
               14.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 367/26

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle (Belgium) lodged on 17 October 2013 — Mohamed M’Bodj v Conseil des ministres
   (Case C-542/13)
   2013/C 367/47
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour constitutionnelle

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Mohamed M’Bodj

      Defendant: Conseil des ministres

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Articles 2(e) and (f), 15, 18, 28 and 29 of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004‘on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third-country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted’ (1) be interpreted as meaning that not only a person who has been granted, at his request, subsidiary protection status by an independent authority of the Member State must be entitled to benefit from the social welfare and health care referred to in Articles 28 and 29 of that directive, but also a foreign national who has been authorised by an administrative authority of a Member State to reside in the territory of that Member State and who suffers from an illness occasioning a real risk to his life or physical integrity or a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment in the case where there is no appropriate treatment in his country of origin or in the country in which he resides?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question referred for a preliminary ruling is that the two categories of persons who are there described must be capable of benefiting from the social welfare and health care referred to therein, must Articles 20(3), 28(2) and 29(2) of Directive 2004/83 be interpreted as meaning that the obligation imposed on Member States to take into account the specific situation of vulnerable persons such as disabled people implies that the latter must be granted the allowances provided for by the Law of 27 February 1987 concerning allowances for disabled people, in view of the fact that social assistance which takes account of the handicap may be granted pursuant to the Basic Law of 8 July 1976 on public social welfare centres?

      (1)  OJ L 304. p. 12.


title: Case C-258/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 15 May 2017 — E.B. v Versicherungsanstalt öffentlich Bediensteter BVA

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/16

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 15 May 2017 — E.B. v Versicherungsanstalt öffentlich Bediensteter BVA
   (Case C-258/17)
   (2017/C 283/23)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant on a point of law: E.B.

      Respondent body: Versicherungsanstalt öffentlich Bediensteter BVA

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 2 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (1) (‘the Directive’) preclude the maintenance in being of the new legal position created by an administrative decision that has become final under national law, in the area of law governing disciplinary action in the civil service (disciplinary decision), compulsorily retiring and reducing the pension benefits of a civil servant, where
               that administrative decision was not yet subject to provisions of EU law, in particular the Directive, at the time when it was adopted, but
               a (notional) decision to the same effect would infringe the Directive if it were adopted within the temporal scope of the Directive?

               2.

               If the first question is answered in the affirmative, is it, for the purposes of creating a non-discriminatory situation,

                           (a)

                           necessary under EU law, for the purposes of determining the civil servant’s pension, to treat him as if, in the period between the entry into force of the administrative decision and his reaching statutory pensionable age, he had not been retired but working, or is it

                           (b)

                           sufficient for these purposes to recognise as due the unreduced pension accruing in consequence of compulsory retirement at the time specified in the administrative decision?

               3.

               Does the answer to Question 2 depend on whether the civil servant did in fact proactively seek active employment in the federal civil service before reaching retirement age?

               4.

               If it is considered sufficient to annul the percentage reduction of pension entitlement (and depending also, if necessary, on the circumstances referred to in Question 3):
               Can the principle of non-discrimination contained in the Directive support a primacy of application over conflicting national law which a national court must observe, when calculating pension entitlement, even in respect of periods before the Directive became directly applicable in national law?

               5.

               If Question 4 is answered in the affirmative, to which point in time does such ‘retroactive effect’ extend?

      (1)  OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.


title: Case C-381/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Bruxelles by judgment of that court of  13 October 2005  in De Lantsheer Emmanuel v Comite Interprofessionnel du vin de Champagne ( CIVC ) and Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin

text:
               14.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 10/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Bruxelles by judgment of that court of 13 October 2005 in De Lantsheer Emmanuel v Comite Interprofessionnel du vin de Champagne (‘CIVC’) and Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin
   (Case C-381/05)
   (2006/C 10/20)
   Language of the case: French
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by judgment of the Cour d'appel de Bruxelles (Brussels Court of Appeal) of 13 October 2005, received at the Court Registry on 19 October 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between De Lantsheer Emmanuel and Comite Interprofessionnel du vin de Champagne (‘CIVC’) and Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin on the following questions:

               1.

               Does the definition of comparative advertising cover advertisements in which the advertiser refers only to a type of product, so that in those circumstances such advertisements must be regarded as referring to all undertakings which offer that type of product, and each of them can claim to have been identified?

               2.

               With a view to determining whether there is a competitive relationship between the advertiser and the undertaking to which reference is made within the meaning of Article 2a of Directive 84/450:

                           (a)

                           On the basis in particular of a comparison of Article 2a with paragraph (b) of Article 3a, should any undertaking which can be identified in the advertising be regarded as a competitor within the meaning of Article 2a, whatever the goods or services it offers?

                           (b)

                           In the event of a negative response to that question and if other conditions are required in order for a competitive relationship to be established, is it necessary to consider the current state of the market and drinking habits in the Community or is it necessary also to consider how those habits might evolve?

                           (c)

                           Must any investigation be confined to that part of the Community territory in which the advertising is disseminated?

                           (d)

                           Is it necessary to consider the competitive relationship in relation to the types of products being compared and the way in which those types of products are generally perceived, or is it necessary, in order to assess the degree of substitution possible, to take into account also the particular characteristics of the product which the advertiser intends to promote in the advertising concerned and of the image he intends to give it?

                           (e)

                           Are the criteria by which a competitive relationship within the meaning of Article 2(2a) can be established identical to the criteria for verifying whether the comparison satisfies the condition referred to in paragraph (b) of Article 3a?

               3.

               Does a comparison of Article 2(2a) of Directive 84/450 (1) with Article 3a of that directive mean that

                           (a)

                           either any comparative advertising is unlawful which enables a type of product to be identified where a competitor or the goods offered by him cannot be identified from the wording?

                           (b)

                           or the lawfulness of the comparison must be considered in the light only of national legislation other than that by which the provisions of the directive on comparative advertising are transposed, which could lead to reduced protection for consumers or undertakings offering the type of product being compared with the product offered by the advertiser?

               4.

               If it should be concluded that there has been comparative advertising within the meaning of Article 2(2a), must it be inferred from Article 3a(1)(f) of the Directive that any comparison is unlawful which, in respect of products without designation of origin, relates to products with designation of origin?

      (1)  Council Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 relating to the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning misleading advertising (OJ 1984 L 250, p. 17), as amended by Directive 97/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 1997 (OJ 1997 L 290, p. 18)


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by order of the Conseil d'Etat of the Kingdom of Belgium, Administrative Division, in the proceedings pending before that court in the case of Ligue Royale Belge pour la Protection des Oiseaux and Société d'Etudes Ornithologiques AVES against the Walloon Region, intervener: Fédération Royale Ornithologique Belge (Case C-10/96)

text:
2 . 3 . 96                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 64/9
      and which has not been published or otherwise made                — must Articles 4 and 7 of Council Directive 69/355/EEC
      available to the parties ?                                            of 17 July 1969 (*) be interpreted as meaning that the
                                                                            Directive applies to the merger/take-over transactions
4 . Having regard to all other circumstances was the fixing                 defined by Articles 371 to 372-2 of Law No 66.537 of
      of the said quotas by the Council compatible with:                    24 July 1966 on commercial companies ?
        ( i ) the common fisheries policy, and in particular
              Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3760/92 of
                                                                        — Is the charging by the French State of a proportional tax
                                                                            for the drawing-up of registration certificates following
              20 December 1992 establishing a Community
                                                                            a merger/take-over transaction compatible with the
              system for fisheries and aquaculture (2)?                     prohibition laid down by Article 10 of the Directive and,
      ( ii ) The principle of proportionality ?                             if it is not, is it covered by the provisions of
                                                                            Article 12 ?
5 . If the fixing of the said quotas by Regulation ( EC )
      No 3362/94 is invalid are the applicants entitled to claim        (') OJ, English Special Edition 1969 ( II ), p. 412 .
      damages against the respondent and if so what are the
      conditions for liability ?
(') OJ No L 363 , 31 . 12 . 1994, p . 1 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 389 , 31 . 12 . 1992 , p . 1 .
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by order of the Conseil
                                                                        d'Etat of the Kingdom of Belgium, Administrative Division,
                                                                        in the proceedings pending before that court in the case of
                                                                        Ligue Royale Beige pour la Protection des Oiseaux and
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura                       Societe d'Etudes Ornithologiques AVES against the
Circondariale di Roma — Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli by                 Walloon Region, intervener: Federation Royale
orders of that court of 22 November 1995 in criminal                                         Ornithologique Beige
proceedings against Sandro Gallotti and Francesco
                                 Palermo                                                          ( Case C-10/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 64/20 )
                       ( Case C-6/96 and 7/96 )
                             ( 96/C 64/18 )
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  European Communities by judgment of the Conseil d'Etat
European Communities by orders of the Pretura                           ( Council of State ) of the Kingdom of Belgium,
Circondariale di Roma — Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli                    Administrative Division, of 10 November 1995 , which was
( Rome District Magistrate's Court, Tivoli Division ) of                received at the Court Registry on 17 January 1996 , for a
22 November 1995 , which were received at the Court                     preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
Registry on 11 January 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in               court in the case of Ligue Royale Beige pour la Protection
criminal proceedings against Sandro Gallotti and Francesco              des Oiseaux and Societe d'Etudes Ornithologiques AVES
Palermo . The questions referred by the Pretura                         against the Walloon Region, intervener: Federation Royale
Circondariale di Roma — Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli to the             Ornithologique Beige, on the following questions :
Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling are identical with
those in Case C-58/95 ( 1 ).                                            1 . Do Articles 5 , 9 and 18 of Directive 79/409/EEC ( 1 ) of
                                                                            2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds allow a
(!) OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 , p. 6 .                                    Member State to take account, on a decreasing basis and
                                                                            over a specified period, of the fact that the prohibition of
                                                                            capturing birds for recreational purposes would compel
                                                                            numerous fanciers to alter their installations and to
                                                                            abandon certain habitats where that State recognizes
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de                     that breeding is possible but is not yet feasible on a large
                                                                            scale for that reason ?
Grande Instance (First Chamber), Tours, by judgment of
that court of 4 January 1996 in the case of Locamion SA v.
            Directeur des Services Fiscaux d'Indre et Loire             2 . Do Articles 5 , 9 and 18 of Directive 79/409/EEC allow
                              Case C-8/96 )                                 Member States, and if so to what extent, to authorize the
                                                                            capture of birds living naturally in the wild state within
                              ( 96/C 64/19 )                                European territory with a view to obviating, in bird
                                                                             breeding for recreational purposes, the problems of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      consanguinity which would result from too many
European Communities by order of the First Chamber of the                   endogenous crossings ?
Tribunal de Grande Instance ( Regional Court), Tours, of
4 January 1996, received at the Court Registry on
                                                                        (') OJ No L 103 , p . 1 .
 15 January 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Locamion SA v. Directeur des Services Fiscaux d'Indre et
Loire on the following questions :


title: Case C-298/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 December 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Münster (Germany)) — Columbus Container Services BVBA & Co. v Finanzamt Bielefeld-Innenstadt (Articles 43 EC and 56 EC — Taxes on revenue and wealth — Conditions for taxing the profits of an establishment situated in another Member State — Double taxation convention — Methods of exempting or offsetting tax)

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/3

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 December 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Münster (Germany)) — Columbus Container Services BVBA & Co. v Finanzamt Bielefeld-Innenstadt
   (Case C-298/05) (1)

   (Articles 43 EC and 56 EC - Taxes on revenue and wealth - Conditions for taxing the profits of an establishment situated in another Member State - Double taxation convention - Methods of exempting or offsetting tax)
   (2008/C 22/04)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Finanzgericht Münster
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Columbus Container Services BVBA & Co.

      Defendant: Finanzamt Bielefeld-Innenstadt
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Münster — Interpretation of Articles 43 EC, 56 EC, 57 EC and 58 EC — Freedom of establishment and free movement of capital — Controlled-foreign-corporation income which is the designated passive income of a foreign permanent establishment of a party with unlimited liability to tax in Germany — National legislation offsetting the foreign tax on that income against national tax, contrary to the provisions of the double taxation convention with Belgium, which provides for use of the method of exemption from taxation
   Operative part of the judgment
   Articles 43 EC and 56 EC must be interpreted as not precluding tax legislation of a Member State under which the income of a resident national derived from capital invested in an establishment which has its registered office in another Member State is, notwithstanding the existence of a double taxation convention concluded with the Member State in which the establishment has its registered office, not exempted from national income tax but is subject to national taxation against which the tax levied in the other Member State is set off.

      (1)  OJ C 271, 29.10.2005.


title: Case C-374/12: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — ‘Valimar’ OOD v Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Varna (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Dumping — Iron or steel ropes and cables originating in Russia — Regulation (EC) No 384/96 — Articles 2(8) and (9) and 11(2), (3), (9) and (10) — Interim review — Expiry review of the anti-dumping measures — Validity of Regulation (EC) No 1279/2007 — Determination of the export price on the basis of sales to third countries — Reliability of export prices — Taking into consideration of price undertakings — Change in circumstances — Application of a methodology which is different from that used at the time of the original investigation)

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/2

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — ‘Valimar’ OOD v Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Varna
   (Case C-374/12) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Dumping - Iron or steel ropes and cables originating in Russia - Regulation (EC) No 384/96 - Articles 2(8) and (9) and 11(2), (3), (9) and (10) - Interim review - Expiry review of the anti-dumping measures - Validity of Regulation (EC) No 1279/2007 - Determination of the export price on the basis of sales to third countries - Reliability of export prices - Taking into consideration of price undertakings - Change in circumstances - Application of a methodology which is different from that used at the time of the original investigation))
   2014/C 421/02
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Varhoven administrativen sad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant:‘Valimar’ OOD

      Respondent: Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Varna

      Operative part of the judgment

   Consideration of the questions referred has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Council Regulation (EC) No 1279/2007 of 30 October 2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on certain iron or steel ropes and cables originating in the Russian Federation, and repealing the anti-dumping measures on imports of certain iron or steel ropes and cables originating in Thailand and Turkey.

      (1)  OJ C 311, 13.10.2012.


               19.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/20

         Removal from the register of Case C-50/04 (1)

   (2005/C 45/41)

      (Language of the case: Portuguese)

   By order of 18 November 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-50/04: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Portugal.

      (1)  OJ C 71 of 20.03.2004.