title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 November 2002 in Case C-316/00: Commission of the European Communities v Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 80/778/EEC — Quality of water intended for human consumption — Incomplete implementation)

text:
21.12.2002                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 323/15
1.     The first paragraph of Article 1 of the Convention of                 assisted by E. Fitzsimons, and E. Galligan, BL): Application for
       27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of              a declaration that:
       Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by
       the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the
       Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of
       Great Britain and Northern Ireland and by the Convention of
       25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic,            —     by failing to ensure compliance with microbiological
       must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘civil matters’          parameters 57 (total coliforms) and 58 (faecal coliforms)
       encompasses an action under a right of recourse whereby a                   of Annex I to Council Directive 80/778/EEC of 15 July
       public body seeks from a person governed by private law recovery            1980 relating to the quality of water intended for human
       of sums paid by it by way of social assistance to the divorced              consumption (OJ 1980 L 229, p. 11) in respect of certain
       spouse and the child of that person, provided that the basis and            public water supplies and certain group water supplies
       the detailed rules relating to the bringing of that action are              (other than those providing less than 10 m3 a day as an
       governed by the rules of the ordinary law in regard to                      average or serving fewer than 50 persons, unless the
       maintenance obligations. Where the action under a right of                  water is supplied as part of a commercial or public
       recourse is founded on provisions by which the legislature                  activity) identified in official drinking water reports and
       conferred on the public body a prerogative of its own, that                 in correspondence concerning Ballycroy (Ireland), and
       action cannot be regarded as being brought in ‘civil matters’.
2.     Point 3 of the second paragraph of Article 1 of the Brussels
       Convention must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of
       ‘social security’ does not encompass the action under a right of      —     by failing, in its implementing legislation, to reflect the
       recourse by which a public body seeks from a person governed                binding character of the requirements of Annex I to the
       by private law recovery in accordance with the rules of the                 directive in relation to group water supplies, Ireland has
       ordinary law of sums paid by it by way of social assistance to              failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 7(6), 18 and
       the divorced spouse and the child of that person.                           19 of that directive and under the EC Treaty,
( 1) OJ C 259 of 9.9.2000.
                                                                             the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet,
                                                                             President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen, V. Skouris, F. Macken
                                                                             and J. N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), Judges; A. Tizzano,
                                                                             Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has
                                                                             given a judgment on 14 November 2002, in which it:
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                             1.    Declares that:
                         of 14 November 2002
in Case C-316/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                             ties v Ireland ( 1)                                   —     by failing to ensure compliance with microbiological
                                                                                parameters 57 (total coliforms) and 58 (faecal coliforms)
                                                                                of Annex I to Council Directive 80/778/EEC of 15 July
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                                   1980 relating to the quality of water intended for human
Directive 80/778/EEC — Quality of water intended for                                     consumption in respect of certain public water supplies
      human consumption — Incomplete implementation)                                     and certain group water supplies (other than those
                                                                                providing less than 10 m 3 a day as an average or serving
                                                                                fewer than 50 persons, unless the water is supplied as
                            (2002/C 323/17)                                              part of a commercial or public activity) identified in
                                                                                official drinking water reports and in correspondence
                                                                                concerning Ballycroy, Ireland, and
                      (Language of the case: English)
In Case C-316/00, Commission of the European Communities                           —     by failing, in its implementing legislation, to reflect the
(Agent: R. B. Wainwright) v Ireland (Agent: D. J. O’Hagan,                               binding character of the requirements of Annex I to the
 ---pagebreak--- C 323/16                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                        21.12.2002
            directive in relation to group water supplies, Ireland has                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
            failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 7(6), 18 and
            19 of that directive;
2.    Orders Ireland to pay the costs.                                                                  (Sixth Chamber)
( 1) OJ C 302 of 21.10.2002.
                                                                                of 7 November 2002
                                                                              in Case C-333/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                                the Tarkastuslautakunta): Eila Päivikki Maaheimo ( 1)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                              (Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Family benefits — Home
                        of 5 November 2002
                                                                                child-care allowance — Residence condition for children)
in Case C-325/00: Commission of the European Communi-
             ties v Federal Republic of Germany (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 323/19)
(Free movement of goods — Measures having equivalent
               effect — Label of origin and quality)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Finnish)
                            (2002/C 323/18)
                    (Language of the case: German)                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-325/00, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: J. C. Schieferer and C. Schmidt) v Federal Republic of               In Case C-333/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
Germany (Agent: W.-D. Plessing, acting as Agent, assisted by                  EC by the Tarkastuslautakunta (Finland) for a preliminary
M. Loschelder): Application for a declaration that by awarding                ruling in the proceedings pending before that court by Eila
the quality label ‘Markenqualität aus deutschen Landen’ (quality              Päivikki Maaheimo, on the interpretation of Articles 4(1)(h),
label for produce made in Germany) to finished products of a                  10(a), 73 and 75 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of
certain quality produced in Germany, the Federal Republic of                  14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to
Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 30 of              employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members
the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC), the                      of their families moving within the Community, as amended
Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President,                      and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of
J.-P. Puissochet and M. Wathelet (Presidents of Chambers),                    2 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1), the Court (Sixth
C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola, P. Jann, V. Skouris,                  Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen, President of the Second
F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and J. N. Cunha Rodrigues,                Chamber, acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber,
Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has              V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric (Rapporteur) and J. N. Cunha
given a judgment on 5 November 2002, in which it:                             Rodrigues, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,
                                                                              Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                              7 November 2002, in which it has ruled:
1.    Declares that, by awarding the quality label ‘Marenqualität aus
      deutschen Landen’ (quality label for produce made in Germany)
      to finished products of a certain quality made in Germany, the
      Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations        1.    A benefit such as the home child-care allowance provided for by
      under Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,                      the Laki lasten kotihoidon ja yksityisen hoidon tuesta (Law
      Article 28 EC);                                                               No 1128/96 on home child-care allowance and private child-
                                                                                care allowance) is a family benefit within the meaning of
2.    Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.                      Article 4(1)(h) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of
                                                                                14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to
                                                                                employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of
( 1) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.                                                         their families moving within the Community, as amended and
                                                                                updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December
                                                                                1996.


title: Case C-127/03: Action brought on 21 March 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against Trendsoft (Irl) Ltd

text:
C 112/20               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        10.5.2003
Action brought on 20 March 2003 by the Commission of                       Action brought on 21 March 2003 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Federal Republic                        the European Communities against Trendsoft (Irl) Ltd
                             of Germany
                          (Case C-125/03)                                                          (Case C-127/03)
                          (2003/C 112/34)                                                          (2003/C 112/35)
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 20 March 2003 by the Commission of the European                    An action against Trendsoft (Irl) Ltd was brought before the
Communities, represented by Klaus Wiedner, of its Legal                    Court of Justice of the European Communities on 21 March
Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                        2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                           represented by L. Flynn and C. Giolito, acting as agents, with
                                                                           an address for service in Luxembourg.
The Commission claims that the Court should:
—     declare that, in so far as the refuse disposal contracts
      concluded by the town councils of Lüdinghausen and                   The Applicant claims that the Court should:
      Olfen and the district councils of Nordkirchen, Senden
      and Ascheberg were awarded without complying with                    —     condemn the defendant to pay the applicant the sum of
      the requirements concerning contract notices laid down                     24 751,57 Euros (twenty four thousand seven hundred
      in Article 8 in conjunction with Articles 15(2) and 16(1)                  and fifty one Euros and fifty seven cents), corresponding
      of Directive 92/50, ( 1) the Federal Republic of Germany                   to 21 303,00 Euros as the amount due and
      has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive, and             3 448,57 Euros as late payment interest as of 31 March
                                                                                2003, at a rate of 6,09 % until 31 December 2002 and a
—     order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.                    rate of 8,09 % thereafter;
                                                                           —     condemn the defendant to pay 4,72 Euros (four Euros
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                  and seventy two cents) per day by way of interest from
                                                                                1 April 2003 until the date on which the debt is repaid
                                                                                in full;
Although it has admitted the infringements complained of and
asserts its intention in future to invite tenders for refuse
disposal services in a manner consistent with Community law                —     condemn the defendant to pay the costs of the present
on the award of contracts, the defendant has taken no steps                      action.
to terminate the existing contracts which still have until
31 December 2003 to run.
The defendant does not even contend that termination of the                Pleas in law and main arguments
contracts is impossible under German law. It merely points
out that premature termination of the contracts could give rise
to claims for damages. On the contrary, it is conducive to the
effectiveness of Community law on the award of contracts if                In accordance with Article 16(3) of the financial Annex to the
contracting authorities can expect, if necessary, to have to               contract, the defendant undertook, in the event that the total
make payments of damages.                                                  financial contribution due for the project was less than the
                                                                           payments made for the project, to immediately reimburse the
                                                                           difference to the Commission.
Moreover, the obligation to remedy infringements of Com-
munity law on the award of contracts by also terminating
contracts already concluded cannot be called in question by
Article 2(6) of Directive 89/665, (2) which deals with the                 In its final consolidated cost statement of 23 September 1999
                                                                           the Commission indicated that it would not take certain
review of possible infringements of Community law on the
award of contracts. A Treaty infringement can be regarded as               claimed costs into account and explained why these were
                                                                           inadmissible. The defendant accepted the Commission’s pro-
ended only when the Member State has both acknowledged
                                                                           posed final consolidated cost statement by fax of 5 April 2000.
the unlawfulness of its conduct and completely remedied the
infringement.                                                              It does not dispute its obligation to reimburse the amounts
                                                                           unduly paid by the Commission but has failed to comply with
                                                                           that obligation and is, therefore, in breach of its obligation
( 1) OJ L 209 of 24.7.1992, p. 1.                                          arising under the contract.
( 2) OJ L 395 of 30.12.1989, p. 33.


title: Case C-262/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 10 May 2017 — Solvay Chimica Italia SpA and Others v Autorità per l’energia elettrica e per il gas e il sistema idrico

text:
               18.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 309/17

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 10 May 2017 — Solvay Chimica Italia SpA and Others v Autorità per l’energia elettrica e per il gas e il sistema idrico
   (Case C-262/17)
   (2017/C 309/23)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Solvay Chimica Italia SpA, Solvay Specialty Polymers Italy SpA, Solvay Chimica Bussi SpA, Ferrari F.lli Lunelli SpA, Fenice — Qualità Per L’ambiente SpA, Erg Power Srl, Erg Power Generation SpA, Eni SpA, Enipower SpA

      Defendant: Autorità per l’energia elettrica e per il gas e il sistema idrico

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the provisions of Directive 2009/72/EC, (1) in particular Articles 3(5) and (6) and 28, be interpreted as meaning that a system created and operated by a private person, to which a limited number of generation and consumption units are connected, and which in turn is connected to the public network, necessarily constitutes an electricity network, and thus a ‘distribution system’ for the purposes of that directive, without it being possible to exclude from that classification private systems with those characteristics created before the entry into force of that directive and set up originally for the purpose of self-generation?

               2.

               If the preceding question is answered in the affirmative, is the only possibility offered by the directive of taking advantage of the particular features of a private electricity network that of including it in the category of closed distribution systems referred to in Article 28 of the directive, or is the national legislature permitted to identify another category of distribution systems subject to a simplified set of rules which are different from those laid down in respect of closed distribution systems?

               3.

               Independently of the previous questions, must the directive be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to connect third parties is applicable in all cases to the closed distribution systems referred in Article 28?

               4.

               Independently of the previous questions, does the classification of a private electricity network as a closed distribution system within the meaning of Article 28 of Directive 2009/72/EC, permit the national legislature to allow, in favour of such a system, only the derogations from the general scheme for distribution systems expressly referred to in Articles 28 and 26(4) of the directive, or is the Member State — in the light of what is stated in recitals 29 and 30 of the directive — permitted or required to provide for other exceptions to the application of the general rules governing distribution systems in such a way as to ensure attainment of the objectives set out in those recitals?

               5.

               In the event that the Court of Justice considers that the Member State may or must lay down rules which take account of the specific nature of closed distribution systems, do the provisions of Directive 2009/72/EC — in particular recitals 29 and 30 and Articles 15(7), 37(6)(b) and 26(4) — preclude national legislation, such as that under consideration in the present case, which subjects closed distribution systems to rules on dispatching and unbundling that are very similar to those imposed in respect of public networks and which, as regards general electricity charges, provides that payment of those charges should in part also be commensurate with the energy consumed within the closed system?

      (1)  Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55).


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance 28 February 2002 in Case T-155/98: Société internationale de diffusion et d_édition (SIDE) v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Operating aid — Article 92(1) and (3)(d) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87(1) and (3)(d) EC) — Conditions for exemption from the prohibition under Article 92(1) of the Treaty — Reference market — Export aid in the book sector)

text:
15.6.2002                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 144/35
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 3.    Orders the Foreign Trade Association to bear its own costs and
                                                                                pay those incurred, as a result of its intervention, by the Council;
                          28 February 2002                                 4.    Orders the Commission to bear its own costs.
in Case T-598/97: British Shoe Corporation Footwear
   Supplies Ltd e.a. v Council of the European Union (1)                   (1) OJ C 55 of 20.2.1998.
(Anti-dumping duty — Action for annulment — Inadmissi-
                                 bility)
                           (2002/C 144/74)
                                                                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                     (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                28 February 2002
                                                                           in Case T-155/98: Société internationale de diffusion et
In Case T-598/97, British Shoe Corporation Footwear Supplies               d’édition (SIDE) v Commission of the European Com-
Ltd, established in Leicester (United Kingdom), Clarks Inter-                                           munities (1)
national Ltd, established in Somerset (United Kingdom), Deich-
mann-Schuhe GmbH & Co. Vertriebs KG, established in Essen
                                                                           (State aid — Operating aid — Article 92(1) and (3)(d) of
(Germany), Groupe André SA, established in Paris (France),
Reno Versandhandel GmbH, established in Thaleischweiler-                   the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87(1) and
Froschen (Germany), Leder & Schuh AG, established in Graz                  (3)(d) EC) — Conditions for exemption from the prohibition
                                                                           under Article 92(1) of the Treaty — Reference market —
(Austria), represented by A. Bell and M. Powell, Solicitors, with
an address for service in Luxembourg, supported by Foreign                                   Export aid in the book sector)
Trade Association (FTA), represented by B. Sheridan, Barrister,
with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Council of                                              (2002/C 144/75)
the European Union (Agents: S. Marquardt, H.-J. Rabe and
G. Berrisch), supported by Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: V. Kreuschitz, S. Meany and N. Khan)                                      (Language of the case: French)
and by Confédération européenne de l’industrie de la chaussure
(CEC), represented by P. Vlaemminck, J. Holmens and L. Van
Den Hende, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg: Application for the annulment of Council Regulation
(EC) No 2155/97 of 29 October 1997 imposing a definitive                   In Case T-155/98, Société internationale de diffusion and
anti-dumping duty on imports of certain footwear with textile              d’édition (SIDE), established in Bagneux (France), represented
uppers originating in the People’s Republic of China and                   by N. Coutrelis, lawyer, with an address for service in
Indonesia and collecting definitively the provisional duty                 Luxembourg, v Commission of the European Communities
imposed (OJ 1997 L 298, p. 1), Court of First Instance (Fourth             (Agents: G. Rozet and B. Mongin), supported by French
Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of: P. Mengozzi,                  Republic (Agents: J.-F. Dobelle, G. de Bergues and F. Million):
President, R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas, V. Tiili, R. M. Moura Ramos              Application for annulment of the last sentence of Article 1
and J. D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator,              of Commission Decision 1999/133/EC of 10 June 1998
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 February 2002,               concerning State aid in favour of Coopérative d’exportation du
in which it:                                                               livre français (CELF) (OJ 1999 L 44, p. 37), Court of First
                                                                           Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition), composed
                                                                           of: P. Mengozzi, President, R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas, V. Tiili,
1.    Dismisses the application as inadmissible;                           R. M. Moura Ramos and J. D. Cooke, Judges; D. Christensen,
                                                                           Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                           28 February 2002, in which it:
2.    Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and pay, jointly
      and severally, the costs incurred by the Council, with the
      exception of those relating to the intervention of the Foreign       1.    Annuls the last sentence of Article 1 of Commission Decision
      Trade Association, and by the Confédération européenne de                  1999/133/EC of 10 June 1998 concerning State aid in favour
      l’industrie de la chaussure;                                               of Coopérative d’exportation du livre français (CELF);
 ---pagebreak--- C 144/36               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      15.6.2002
2.    Orders the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay those of      2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
      the applicant;
3.    Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.                   (1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999.
(1) OJ C 378 of 5.12.1998.
                                                                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                20 March 2002
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               in Case T-23/99: LR AF 1998 A/S v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
                          20 March 2002                                   (Competition — Cartel — District heating pipes —
                                                                          Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC) —
                                                                          Continuous infringement — Boycott — Access to the file —
in Case T-17/99: KE KELIT Kunststoffwerk GmbH v                           Fine — Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Non-
       Commission of the European Communities (1)                                     retroactivity — Legitimate expectations)
                                                                                (2002/C 144/77)
(Competition — Cartel — District heating pipes —
Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC) — Fine —
Equal treatment — Guidelines on the method of setting fines                                  (Language of the case: English)
                      — Non-retroactivity)
                         (2002/C 144/76)                                  In Case T-23/99, LR af 1998 A/S (formerly Løgstør Rør A/S),
                                                                          established in Løgstør (Denmark), represented by D. Wael-
                                                                          broeck and H. Peytz, lawyers, with an address for service in
                   (Language of the case: German)                         Luxembourg, v Commission of the European Communities
                                                                          (Agents: P. Olivier and E. Gippini Fournier): Application for,
                                                                          primarily, annulment of Commission Decision 1999/60/EC of
                                                                          21 October 1998 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of
                                                                          the EC Treaty (Case No IV/35.691/E-4: — Pre-Insulated Pipe
                                                                          Cartel) (OJ 1999 L 24, p. 1) or, in the alternative, reduction of
In Case T-17/99, KE KELIT Kunststoffwerk GmbH, established                the fine imposed on the applicant by that decision, the Court
in Linz (Austria), represented by G. Grassner and W. Löbl,                of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P. Mengozzi,
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Com-                President, V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges; G. Herzig,
mission of the European Communities (Agents: W. Mölls and                 Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
E. Gippini Fournier): Application for, primarily, annulment of            20 March 2002, in which it has ruled:
Commission Decision 1999/60/EC of 21 October 1998
relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty
(Case No IV/35.691/E-4: — Pre-Insulated Pipe Cartel) (OJ                  1.    Dismisses the application;
1999 L 24, p. 1) or, in the alternative, reduction of the fine
imposed on the applicant by that decision, the Court of
First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P. Mengozzi,                2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
President, V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges; G. Herzig,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
20 March 2002, in which it:                                               (1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999.
1.    Dismisses the application;


title: Case F-122/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 21 November 2013 — Arguelles Arias v Council (Civil Service — Contract staff — Contract for an indefinite period — Termination — Post held requiring security clearance — Clearance refused by the national security authority — Decision varied by the appeal body — Findings of the national security authority and the appeal body not binding on the AECE)

text:
               8.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/34

      Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 21 November 2013 — Arguelles Arias v Council
      (Case F-122/12) (1)

      (Civil Service - Contract staff - Contract for an indefinite period - Termination - Post held requiring security clearance - Clearance refused by the national security authority - Decision varied by the appeal body - Findings of the national security authority and the appeal body not binding on the AECE)
      (2014/C 71/66)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Bruno Arguelles Arias (Awans, Belgium) (represented by: J. Lecuyer, lawyer)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and A. Bisch, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action for annulment of the decision of the Council dismissing the applicant and for compensation for the material and non-material damage suffered.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Tribunal:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Mr Arguelles Arias to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

         (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013, p. 72.


title: Case C-271/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 4 June 2014  — LFB Biomédicaments, Association des déficitaires en Alpha 1 Antitrypsine (Association ADAAT Alpha 1-France) v Ministre du travail, de l’emploi et de la santé, Ministre du budget, des comptes publics et de la réforme de l’État

text:
               25.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/23

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 4 June 2014 — LFB Biomédicaments, Association des déficitaires en Alpha 1 Antitrypsine (Association ADAAT Alpha 1-France) v Ministre du travail, de l’emploi et de la santé, Ministre du budget, des comptes publics et de la réforme de l’État
   (Case C-271/14)
   2014/C 282/28
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: LFB Biomédicaments, Association des déficitaires en Alpha 1 Antitrypsine (Association ADAAT Alpha 1-France)

      Defendants: Ministre du travail, de l’emploi et de la santé, Ministre du budget, des comptes publics et de la réforme de l’État

      Question referred

   Does Article 6(5) of Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the pricing of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems (1) require that a statement of reasons be given for a decision to remove a proprietary medicinal product from the list of medicinal products provided to inpatients in health establishments which may be covered by compulsory health insurance schemes in addition to services relating to hospital treatment covered in the context of fixed payments in respect of periods of hospitalisation and hospital care determined in accordance with diagnosis-related groups?

      (1)  OJ L 40, p. 8.


title: Case C-499/12: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Tivoli, Italy) — Elisabetta Gentile v Ufficio Finanziario della Direzione Ufficio Territoriale di Tivoli and Others (Request for a preliminary ruling — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Need for a link with European Union law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/13

         Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Tivoli, Italy) — Elisabetta Gentile v Ufficio Finanziario della Direzione Ufficio Territoriale di Tivoli and Others
   (Case C-499/12) (1)

   (Request for a preliminary ruling - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Need for a link with European Union law - Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)
   2013/C 108/27
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Tivoli

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Elisabetta Gentile

      Defendants: Ufficio Finanziario della Direzione Ufficio Territoriale di Tivoli, Fabrizio Penna, Gianfranco Di Nicola

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Tivoli — Interpretation of Article 47 (3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, read in conjunction with Article 6 TEU and Article 52(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Legal aid — National legislation providing that lawyers’ fees are to be halved where the client is awarded legal aid

      Operative part of the order

   The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to reply to the questions asked by the Tribunal di Tivoli (Italy).

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 17 June 1997 in Joined Cases C-65/95 and C-111/95 (references for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division): The Queen v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte: Mann Singh Shingara and The Queen v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte: Abbas Radiom (Free movement of persons - Derogations - Right of entry - Legal remedies - Articles 8 and 9 of Directive 64/221/EEC)

text:
26 . 7 . 97             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 228/5
Member State being refused family benefits in respect of                     to remain in the territory of a Member State after
full calendar months falling within an extended period of                    having been employed in that State and Article 7 of
unpaid leave, where employed persons whose children are                      Council Directive 75/34/EEC of 17 December 1974
domiciled in the Member State concerned are entitled to                      concerning the right of nationals of a Member State to
such benefits.                                                               remain in the territory of another Member State after
                                                                             having pursued therein an activity in a self-employed
O OJ No C 248 , 23 . 9 . 1995 .
                                                                             capacity;
                                                                       2 . orders Ireland to pay the costs.
                                                                       (') OJ No C 197, 6 . 7. 1996 .
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          ( Fifth Chamber)
                          of 12 June 1997
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
in      Case    C-151/96: Commission of the            European
                     Communities v. Ireland (')                                                of 17 June 1997
 (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                in Joined Cases C-65/95 and C-l 11/95 (references for a
Registration of vessels other than fishing vessels —                   preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice,
              Nationality requirement for the owner)                   Queen's Bench Division): The Queen v. Secretary of State
                                                                       for the Home Department, ex parte: Mann Singh Shingara
                            ( 97/C 228/09 )                            and The Queen v. Secretary of State for the Home
                                                                                Department, ex parte: Abbas Radiom ( 1 )
                   (Language of the case: English)                      (Free movement of persons — Derogations — Right of
                                                                       entry — Legal remedies — Articles 8 and 9 of Directive
                                                                                64/22 1/EEC)
 In Case C-151 /96 : Commission of the European                                                  97/C 228 / 10 )
 Communities ( Agents: Frank Benyon and Xavier Lewis ) v.
 Ireland ( Agent: Michael A. Buckley ) — application for a
 declaration that, by maintaining in force laws, regulations                            (Language of the case: English)
 and administrative provisions which limit the right to
 register a vessel other than a fishing vessel in the Irish            In Joined Cases C-65/95 and C-l 11 /95 : references to the
 shipping register to a vessel which is owned in whole or in            Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the High
 part by the Government, a Minister of State, an Irish                  Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division (United
 citizen or an Irish body corporate, Ireland has failed to             Kigndom ) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
 comply with Articles 6 , 48 , 52 and 58 of the EC Treaty,              pending before that court between The Queen and
 Article 7 of Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 1251/70 of               Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte:
 29 June 1970 on the right of workers to remain in the                 Mann Singh Shingara ( C-65/95 ) and between The Queen
 territory of a Member State after having been employed in              and Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte:
 that State ( OJ No L 142 , 30 . 6 . 1970, p. 24 ) and Article 7        Abbas Radiom ( C-l 11/95 ) — on the interpretation of
 of Council Directive 75/34/EEC of 17 December 1974
                                                                        Articles 8 and 9 of Council Directive 64/22 1 /EEC of
 concerning the right of nationals of a Member State to                 25 February 1964 on the coordination of special measures
 remain in the territory of another Member State after                  concerning the movement and residence of foreign
 having pursued therein an activity in a self-employed                  nationals which are justified on grounds of public policy,
 capacity ( OJ No L 14, 20 . 1 . 1975 , p. 10 ) — the Court             public security or public health ( OJ, English Special
  ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of: J. C. Moitinho de                     Edition 1963—1964, p. 117) — the Court, composed of:
 Almeida, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, J.-R
                                                                        G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, G. F. Mancini , J. L.
 Puissochet, P. Jann ( Rapporteur ) and M. Wathelet, Judges;            Murray and L. Sevon ( Rapporteur), Presidents of
  C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has                Chambers, C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann,
 given a judgment on 12 June 1997, in which it:                         D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and M.
                                                                        Wathelet, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate
                                                                        General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on
   1 . declares that, by maintaining in force laws, regulations          17 June 1997, in which it has ruled:
        and administrative provisions which limit the right to
        register a vessel other than a fishing vessel in the Irish
        shipping register to a vessel which is owned in whole            1 . On a proper construction of Article 8 of Council
        or in part by the Government, a Minister of State, an                 Directive 64/221 /EEC of 25 February 1964 on the
        Irish citizen or an Irish body corporate, Ireland has                 coordination of special measures concerning the
        failed to comply with Articles 6, 48, 52 and 58 of the                movement and residence of foreign nationals which
        EC Treaty, Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EEC)                   are justified on grounds of public policy, public
        No 1251 /70 of 29 June 1970 on the right of workers                   security or public health, where under the national
 ---pagebreak--- No C 228/6            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    26 . 7. 97
    legislation of a Member State remedies are available in           individual actions for enforcement from being taken
    respect of acts of the administration generally and               or pursued after the measure initiating the special
    different remedies are available in respect of decisions          administration procedure has been adopted ?
     concerning entry by nationals of that Member State,
     the obligation imposed on the Member State by that
    provision is satisfied if nationals of other Member
     States enjoy the same remedies as those available
     against acts of the administration generally in that             Action brought on 30 May 1997 by the Commission of
     Member State.                                                    the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                                Belgium
                                                                                Case C-207/97 )
2 . On a proper construction of Article 9 of Directive 64/
     221 /EEC, the three cases mentioned in Article 9 (1 )                                        ( 97/C 228/ 12 )
     (namely 'where there is no right of appeal to a court
     of law, or where such appeal may be only in respect of           An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
     the legal validity of the decision, or where the appeal          before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
     cannot have suspensory effect') apply equally as                 on 30 May 1997 by the Commission of the European
     regards Article 9 (2), that is to say, where the decision        Communities, represented by Richard B. Wainwright,
     challenged is a refusal to issue a first residence permit        Principal Legal Adviser, and Jean-Francis Pasquier, a
     or a decision ordering expulsion adopted before the              national civil servant on secondment to the Legal Service,
     issue of such a permit.                                          acting as Agents, with an address for service in
                                                                      Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
3 . A national of a Member State against whom an initial              Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
     decision refusing entry into another Member State has
     been made on grounds of public order or public                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
     security has a right of appeal under Article 8 of the            — declare that, by failing, in breach of Article 7 of
     directive and, if appropriate, a right to obtain the                   Directive 76/464/EEC ( x ), to adopt the programmes
      opinion of an independent competent authority in                      for the reduction of pollution incorporating quality
     accordance with Article 9 of the Directive, with                       objectives, at least as regards the 99 substances listed
      respect to a fresh decision taken by the administrative               in the annex to the application, or by failing to
     authorities on an application made by him after a                      communicate to the Commission summaries of the
      reasonable time has elapsed since the last decision                   programmes in question and the results of the
     prohibiting him from entering the country.                             application thereof, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed
                                                                            to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty,
(■) OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .
                                                                       — order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                       The Directive, which entered into force on the date of its
                                                                       notification, that is to say, 5 May 1976, pursuant to
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte Suprema                Article 191 of the EEC Treaty ( which applied at that
di Cassazione — Sezione Prima Civile by order of that                  time ), does not expressly prescribe the period within
court of 10 February 1997 in the case of Ecotrade Sri                  which the obligations therein set out were to be
       against AFS — Altiforni e Ferriere di Servola SpA               specifically implemented. However, as regards the national
                          ( Case C-200/97                              programmes for the reduction of pollution caused by the
                                                                       substances referred to in List II in the Annex to the
                            ( 97/C 228/ 11
                                                                       Directive, it is apparent from Articles 7 and 12 of the
                                                                       Directive that the Member States were obliged, in
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                principle, to draw up the programmes and to
 European Communities by order of the Corte Suprema di                 communicate summaries of them to the Commission by
 Cassazione — Sezione Prima Civile ( Supreme Court of                  5 August 1978 ; nevertheless, by letter dated 3 November
 Cassation, First Civil Division ) of 10 February 1997,                1976, the Commission proposed that the Member States
 which was received at the Court Registry on 26 May                    should act on the basis of the following dates :
 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ecotrade Sri            15 September 1981 for the programmes for the reduction
 against AFS — Altiforni e Ferriere di Servola SpA on the              of pollution caused by the substances referred to in List II
 following question :                                                  and 15 September 1986 for the implementation of those
                                                                       programmes .
 May a State measure adopted pursuant to Law No 95                     The Commission does not claim that the list of the 99
 which provides for the exemption of large enterprises in              priority substances annexed to the letter before action and
 difficulties from the usual insolvency proceedings and at             the reasoned opinion constitutes a legally binding
 the same time for the enterprise to continue trading be               measure; however, it considers that, so long as the Council
 regarded as aid within the meaning of Article 92 et seq. of           has not fixed emission limit values in respect of substances
 the Treaty, in view of the fact that Decree Law No 414 of             which ought to appear in List I, they must still be treated
 31 July 1981 ( converted into Law No 544/ 1981 ) precludes             as falling within List II .


title: Case C-521/03 P: Appeal brought on 15 December 2003 by Internationaler Hilfsfonds e.V. against the order made on 15 October 2003 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-372/02 between Internationaler Hilfsfonds e.V. and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
6.3.2004               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 59/5
Appeal brought on 15 December 2003 by Internationaler                     misinterpreted both the content and the significance of these
Hilfsfonds e.V. against the order made on 15 October                      letters and, thus, made a judicial error creating negative legal
2003 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance                  consequences for the Appellant. The Court did not apply the
of the European Communities in case T-372/02 between                      rule of Article 48 of the Rules of Procedure, that consideration
Internationaler Hilfsfonds e.V. and the Commission of the                 of the admissibility of the plea shall be reserved for final
                    European Communities                                  judgment.
                        (Case C-521/03 P)
                                                                          The Court of First Instance committed a further procedural
                                                                          error by not accepting the final observations of the Appellant
                          (2004/C 59/08)                                  of 14 October 2002 as part of the file of pleadings. According
                                                                          to Article 48 of the Rules of Procedure, new evidence may be
                                                                          intoduced if based on matters of law or fact which come to
                                                                          light during the course of the procedure. The Appellant has
                                                                          confirmed that the ECHO message was only discovered
An appeal against the order made on 15 October 2003 by the                recently. The Court had not informed the Appellant that the
Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European              written procedure had been closed.
Communities in case T-372/02 (1) between Internationaler
Hilfsfonds e.V. and the Commission of the European Com-
munities, was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 15 December 2003 by Interna-                      The Court of First Instance has, furthermore, to be held
tionaler Hilfsfonds e.V., (hereinafter ‘IH’), established in Ros-         responsible for not having organised an inquiry, in accordance
bach (Germany), represented by H. Kaltenecker, lawyer.                    with normal procedural practice, into the question of why
                                                                          ECHO did not reopen the file of the Applicant after it had
                                                                          received the positive (although late) reaction of the German
The Appellant claims that the Court should:                               Foreign Office with regard to the situation of the Applicant.
—     quash the order of the Court of First Instance of
      15 October 2003;
                                                                          The Court of First Instance, by including in its deliberations
                                                                          matters of substance, has erroneously based its considerations
—     order the Respondent to bear the cost of the procedure.             on Regulation (EC) No 1257/96 (2) although that Regulation
                                                                          entered into force after the application by IH for signing the
                                                                          first FPA.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          The Court has not addressed in its deliberations the ‘suspen-
                                                                          sion’ of the treatment of IH’s application, which had been
                                                                          defined as an illegal measure by the European Ombudsman.
The Appellant submits that the Court of First Instance has                The Court has ignored the fact that neither the earlier rules on
been guilty of a serious breach of procedure in not organising            cooperation with ECHO nor the new Regulation (EC) No 1257/
an oral procedure, thus preventing the Appellant from pre-                96 include any reference to the need for consultation of
senting in detail its views on the question of the admissibility          national authorities.
of its action. The Court was not correct in considering that
there existed any absolute bar to proceeding with the action.
Also, the Court ignored the fact that the Defendant had not
applied for a decision on admissiblity by separate document.
                                                                          The Court of First Instance has not given any weight to the
                                                                          decisions of the European Ombudsman (1702/2001/GG) who
                                                                          had declared ECHO guilty of four acts of maladministration
The Court of First Instance has, on the contrary, based its               and pronounced a certain number of critical remarks.
deliberations on a letter from the Defendant of 19 July 2001
which was, however, nothing more than a reply to ongoing
discussions between ECHO and the Appellant in the course of
that year. IH was not able to recognise it as a ‘decision’. The
contested decision (letter of 22 October 2002, signed on                  With regard to another matter of substance, the Court has,
behalf of the responsible member of the Commission to                     according to the terms of its order, disregarded the rules
whom the Appellant had addressed a request for decision on                applicable to audits which the ECHO-staff wanted to undertake
27 August 2002) was, indeed, the final decision which closed              at the IH-office. In particular, it has not checked the question
the debate between the parties. The Court of First Instance has           of the application of the principle of subsidiarity. Nor has the
 ---pagebreak--- C 59/6                  EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                        6.3.2004
Court taken into account that neither the former rules nor the            Action brought on 16 December 2003 by the Commission
new Regulations include a reference to audits. The audit                  of the European Communities against G. & E. Gianniotis
proposed by ECHO had a discriminatory character in so far as                         EPE, trading as ‘Nosokomio Agia Eleni’
there was no justification given for undertaking such an audit
once the German Foreign Office had confirmed the legal status
of IH as a charitable organisation.                                                                (Case C-524/03)
                                                                                (2004/C 59/10)
(1) OJ C 31, 8.2.2003, p. 21.
(2) of the Council, of 20 June 1996, concerning humanitarian aid (OJ
    L 163, 2.7.1996, p. 1).
                                                                          An action against G. &. E. Gianniotis EPE, trading as ‘Nosoko-
                                                                          mio Agia Eleni’ was brought before the Court of Justice of
                                                                          the European Communities on 16 December 2003 by the
                                                                          Commission of the European Communities, represented by
                                                                          Dimitri Triandafilou of its Legal Service, assisted by Nicolao
                                                                          Korogiannakis, of the Athens Bar, with an address for service
                                                                          in Luxembourg.
Action brought on 15 December 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against Biotrast AE, Anoni-
               mi Eteria Tekhnologion Aikhmis                             The applicant claims that the Court should order the defendant:
                                                                          (a)   to pay the amount of EUR 236 977,73, comprising the
                          (Case C-523/03)
                                                                                principal sum of EUR 212 010,17 and daily interest of
                                                                                EUR 24 697,76 from the date of each debit note until
                           (2004/C 59/09)                                       31 October 2003;
                                                                          (b) to pay interest in the amount of EUR 42,16 per day as
                                                                                from 31 October 2003 until payment in full of the debt;
An action against Biotrast AE, Anonomi Eteria Tekhnologion
Aikhmis, was brought before the Court of Justice of the                   (c)   to pay the costs.
European Communities on 15 December 2003 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities, represented by Dimitris
Triantafillou, of its Legal Service, and by Nikolaos Koroyian-
nakis, of the Athens Bar, with an address for service in                  Pleas in law and main arguments
Luxembourg. The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          (a)   Liability to repay the amount unduly paid by the Com-
                                                                                mission;
order the defendant:
                                                                          (b) Date on which interest became payable.
(a)   to pay the amount of EUR 730 726,81, representing a
      capital sum of EUR 661 838,82 and daily interest of EUR
      68 887,99, from the date on which the debit note fell
      due with interest at 4,77 % until 31.12.2002 and 6,77 %
      from 11.2003;
(b) to pay interest in the amount of EUR 122,75 per day
      from 31.10.2003 until the debt is repaid in full;                   Action brought on 16 December 2003 by the Commission
                                                                          of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
(c)   to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Case C-525/03)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                     (2004/C 59/11)
(a)   There is an obligation to repay the amount unduly paid
      by the Commission.
                                                                          An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
(b) The date on which interest became payable.                            Court of Justice of the European Communities on 16 December
                                                                          2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                          represented by Klaus Wiedner and Claudio Loggi, acting as
                                                                          Agents.


title: Case C-65/11: Action brought on 15 February 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
               30.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 130/10

         Action brought on 15 February 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-65/11)
   2011/C 130/19
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Nijenhuis and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to consult the VAT Committee and by allowing non-taxable persons to join a fiscal unit, as is apparent from the resolution of 18 February 1991, No VB91/347, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 9 and 11 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax;

               —

               order Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Article 9(1) of Directive 2006/112/EC provides that ‘taxable person’ means any person who, independently, carries out in any place any economic activity, whatever the results of that activity. Article 11 of the VAT Directive provides that after consulting the advisory committee on value added tax (‘the VAT Committee’) each Member State may regard as a single taxable person any persons established in the territory of that Member State who, while legally independent, are closely bound to one another by financial, economic and organisational links.
   According to the Commission, the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 9 and 11 of Directive 2006/112/EC because it permits non-taxable persons to join a fiscal unit. Furthermore, in failing to consult the VAT Committee, the Netherlands has failed to comply with Article 11.

      (1)  OL 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case T-564/17: Action brought on 18 August 2017 — Tong Myong/Council and Commission

text:
               9.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 338/19

         Action brought on 18 August 2017 — Tong Myong/Council and Commission
   (Case T-564/17)
   (2017/C 338/21)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: So Tong Myong (Pyongyang, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) (represented by: M. Lester and S. Midwinter, QC, T. Brentnall and A. Stevenson, Solicitors)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union, European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/993 of 12 June 2017 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 329/2007 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (OJ 2017, L 149, p. 67) and Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/994 of 12 June 2017 amending Decision (CFSP) 2016/849 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (OJ 2017, L 149, p. 75), insofar as those acts include the applicant in the list of entities subject to restrictive measures;

               —

               order the defendants to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the defendants have failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons for including the applicant.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the defendants have manifestly erred in considering that any of the criteria for listing in the contested measures were fulfilled in the applicant’s case; there is no factual basis for its inclusion.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the defendants have misused their powers by attempting to render ineffective the applicant’s right to an effective remedy in relation to its listing pursuant to Article 230 TFEU and/or they have breached the applicant’s right to equal treatment.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendants have breached the applicant’s rights of defence by failing to provide him with the evidence on which they rely before re-listing the applicant.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendants have breached data protection law.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the defendants have infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicant’s fundamental rights, including its right to protection of its property, business, and reputation.


title: Case F-136/12: Action brought on 9 November 2012 — ZZ v Council

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/75

         Action brought on 9 November 2012 — ZZ v Council
   (Case F-136/12)
   2013/C 26/155
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment, firstly, of Council Decision 2011/866/EU of 19 December 2011 concerning the Commission’s proposal for a Council Regulation adjusting the remuneration and pension of the officials and other servants of the European Union and, secondly, the salary statements for January, February and March 2012 established pursuant to that decision.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decisions of the Council expressed in the salary statements of January 2012 et seq. and in the statements of 2011 inasmuch as they do not apply the adjustment rate of 1,7 % proposed by the Commission;

               —

               Order the Council to reimburse the applicant the difference between the salary amounts paid pursuant to the Council Decision of 19 December 2011 until the date of judgment in the present case and those which ought to have been paid to him had the adjustment been correctly calculated, together with interest at the rate fixed by the European Central Bank for main refinancing operations applicable during the relevant periods, increased by three and a half points, with effect from the date on which the sums of the principal claim fell due;

               —

               Order the Council to pay the costs.


title: Case C-270/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arios Pagos by decision of that court of 9 June 2005 in Athinaiki Khartopiia A.E. v L. Panagiotidis and Others

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/29

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arios Pagos by decision of that court of 9 June 2005 in Athinaiki Khartopiia A.E. v L. Panagiotidis and Others
   (Case C-270/05)
   (2005/C 217/56)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by decision of the Arios Pagos (Supreme Court of Cassation) of 9 June 2005, received at the Court Registry on 1 July 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Athinaiki Khartopiia A.E. and L. Panagiotidis and Others on the following question:
   Does the operating unit whose staff were made collectively redundant by the employer in derogation from the procedures for informing and consulting with the workers' representatives which are envisaged in Article 1(2)(d) of Directive 75/129, Article 2(4) of Directive 92/56 and Article 4(4) of Directive 98/59 fall within the meaning of the Community term ‘establishment’, for the purpose of applying the Council directives referred to in the grounds of this decision and Law 1387/1983 concerning ‘control of collective redundancies and other provisions’?


title: Case T-674/11: Action brought on 30 December 2011 — TV2/Danmark v Commission

text:
               17.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/19

         Action brought on 30 December 2011 — TV2/Danmark v Commission
   (Case T-674/11)
   2012/C 80/34
   Language of the case: Danish

      Parties

      Applicant: TV2/Danmark (Odense, Denmark) (represented by: O. Koktvedgaard)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Principal head of claim: annulment of Commission Decision of 20 April 2011 on the measures implemented by Denmark for TV2/Danmark (C 2/2003), in so far as it finds that the measures investigated constituted State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU (recitals 101 and 153 and first paragraph of the Conclusion of the Decision).

               —

               Alternative head of claim: annulment of Commission Decision of 20 April 2011 on the measures implemented by Denmark for TV2/Danmark (C 2/2003) in so far as it finds:

                           —

                           that the measures investigated constituted new aid which therefore had to be notified (recital 154 and first paragraph of the Conclusion of the Decision);

                           —

                           that the licensing fees which, in the years 1997-2002, were transferred to the regions via TV2, constituted State aid for TV2 (recital 194 of the Decision); and

                           —

                           that the advertising revenues which, in 1995 and 1996 and at the time of the winding-up of the TV2 Fund in 1997, were transferred from the TV2 Fund to TV2, constituted State aid for TV2 (recitals 90, 92, 193 and 195, with Table 1).

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant submits that the contested decision is contrary to Article 107(1) TFEU, Article 14 TFEU and the Amsterdam Protocol. The applicant submits:

               —

               that the applicant did not receive State aid, in that the measures investigated did not favour TV2/Danmark within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU, but were merely compensation for the public services provided by TV2/Danmark. The applicant submits that the Commission did not apply the conditions in Altmark according to their intended spirit and purpose and found, incorrectly, that the second and fourth conditions in Altmark were not fulfilled.

               —

               that the alleged aid to TV2/Danmark in the form of licensing fees and corporate tax exemptions was not new aid within the meaning of Regulation No 659/1999 (1), since those arrangements preceded Denmark’s accession to the EU;

               —

               that the licensing fees which were transferred to the regions via TV2/Danmark from 1997 to 2002 cannot be categorised as State aid to TV2/Danmark, since TV2/Danmark was not the actual recipient of those funds; and

               —

               that the funds which were transferred from TV2 Reklame A/S via the TV2 Fund to TV2/Danmark derived from the sale of advertising did not constitute State aid, since that was payment for TV2/Danmark’s broadcasting of advertising on TV2/Danmark’s broadcasting network.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of [Article 108 TFEU] (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).


title: Case C-62/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 10 February 2014  — Peter Gauweiler and Others

text:
               28.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 10 February 2014 — Peter Gauweiler and Others
   (Case C-62/14)
   2014/C 129/15
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesverfassungsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Peter Gauweiler, Bruno Bandulet, Wilhelm Hankel, Wilhelm Nölling, Karl Albrecht Schachtschneider, Joachim Starbatty, Roman Huber and Others, Johann Heinrich von Stein and Others, Fraktion DIE LINKE im Deutschen Bundestag

      Respondent: German Bundestag

      Joined party: Federal Government

      Questions referred

               1.

                           (a)

                           Is the decision of the Governing Council of the European Central Bank of 6 September 2012 on Technical features of Outright Monetary Transactions incompatible with Article 119 and Article 127(1) and (2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and with Articles 17 to 24 of the Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank because it exceeds the monetary policy mandate of the European Central Bank laid down in the abovementioned provisions and encroaches upon the competence of the Member States?
                           Is the mandate of the European Central Bank exceeded in particular because the decision of the Governing Council of the European Central Bank of 6 September 2012

                                       (aa)

                                       is linked to economic assistance programmes of the European Financial Stability Facility or of the European Stability Mechanism (conditionality)?

                                       (bb)

                                       provides for the purchase of government bonds of selected Member States only (selectivity)?

                                       (cc)

                                       provides for the purchase of government bonds of programme countries in addition to assistance programmes of the European Financial Stability Facility or of the European Stability Mechanism (parallelism)?

                                       (dd)

                                       could undermine the limits and conditions laid down by assistance programmes of the European Financial Stability Facility or of the European Stability Mechanism (circumvention)?

                           (b)

                           Is the decision of the Governing Council of the European Central Bank of 6 September 2012 on Technical features of Outright Monetary Transactions incompatible with the prohibition of monetary financing enshrined in Article 123 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union?
                           Is compatibility with Article 123 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union precluded in particular by the fact that the decision of the Governing Council of the European Central Bank of 6 September 2012

                                       (aa)

                                       does not provide for quantitative limits for government bond purchases (volume)?

                                       (bb)

                                       does not provide for a time gap between the issue of government bonds on the primary market and their purchase by the European System of Central Banks on the secondary market (market pricing)?

                                       (cc)

                                       allows all purchased government bonds to be held to maturity (interference with market logic)?

                                       (dd)

                                       does not contain any specific requirements for the credit standing of the government bonds to be purchased (default risk)?

                                       (ee)

                                       provides for the same treatment of the European System of Central Banks as private or other holders of government bonds (debt cut)?

               2.

               In the alternative, in the event that the Court does not consider the decision of the Governing Council of the European Central Bank of 6 September 2012 on Technical features of Outright Monetary Transactions, qua act of a EU institution, to be an appropriate object for a request pursuant to point (b) of the first paragraph of Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union:

                           (a)

                           Are Article 119 and Article 127 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Articles 17 to 24 of the Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank to be interpreted as permitting the Eurosystem, alternatively or cumulatively,

                                       (aa)

                                       to make government bond purchases conditional on the existence of and compliance with economic assistance programmes of the European Financial Stability Facility or of the European Stability Mechanism (conditionality)?

                                       (bb)

                                       to purchase government bonds of selected Member States only (selectivity)?

                                       (cc)

                                       to purchase government bonds of programme countries in addition to assistance programmes of the European Financial Stability Facility or of the European Stability Mechanism (parallelism)?

                                       (dd)

                                       to undermine the limits and conditions laid down by assistance programmes of the European Financial Stability Facility or of the European Stability Mechanism (circumvention)?

                           (b)

                           Having regard to the prohibition of monetary financing, is Article 123 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to be interpreted as permitting the Eurosystem, alternatively or cumulatively,

                                       (aa)

                                       to purchase government bonds without quantitative limits (volume)?

                                       (bb)

                                       to purchase government bonds without a minimum time gap from their issue on the primary market (market pricing)?

                                       (cc)

                                       to hold all purchased government bonds to maturity (interference with market logic)?

                                       (dd)

                                       to purchase government bonds without minimum credit standing requirements (default risk)?

                                       (ee)

                                       to accept the same treatment of the European System of Central Banks as private and other holders of government bonds (debt cut)?

                                       (ff)

                                       to influence pricing, by communicating the intention to purchase or otherwise, coinciding with the issue of government bonds by Member States of the euro area (encouragement to purchase newly issued bonds)?


title: Case C-551/08: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2005/68/EC — Self-employed activity of reinsurance — Taking up and pursuit — National provisions prior to the directive — Failure to communicate or failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               19.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 312/9

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-551/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2005/68/EC - Self-employed activity of reinsurance - Taking up and pursuit - National provisions prior to the directive - Failure to communicate or failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   2009/C 312/14
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by N. Yerrell and M. Kaduczak, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by M. Dowgielewicz, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt within the prescribed period all the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2005/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2005 on reinsurance and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC, 92/49/EEC as well as Directives 98/78/EC and 2002/83/EC (OJ 2005 L 323, p. 1)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2005 on reinsurance and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC, 92/49/EEC as well as Directives 98/78/EC and 2002/83/EC, and by failing to communicate to the Commission of the European Communities the text of the national provisions adopted in the field covered by that directive, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive, in particular Article 64;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 55 of 7.3.2009.


title: Joined Cases T-441/10 P to T-443/10 P: Judgment of the General Court of 20 March 2012 — Kurrer and Others v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Appointment — Classification in grade — Transitional rules for classification in grade on recruitment — Article 5(4) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations — Principle of equal treatment)

text:
               28.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 126/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 20 March 2012 — Kurrer and Others v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-441/10 P to T-443/10 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Appointment - Classification in grade - Transitional rules for classification in grade on recruitment - Article 5(4) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations - Principle of equal treatment)
   2012/C 126/30
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellants: Christian Kurrer (Watermael-Boitsfort, Belgium) (Case T-441/10 P); Salvatore Magazzu (Brussels, Belgium) (Case T-442/10 P); and Stefano Sotgia (Dublin, Ireland) (Case T-443/10 P) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall, acting as Agent); and Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and M. Simm, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Three appeals brought against the judgments of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 8 July 2010 in Case F-126/06 Magazzu v Commission (not yet published in the ECR), Case F-130/06 Sotgia v Commission (not yet published in the ECR) and Case F-139/06 Kurrer v Commission (not yet published in the ECR) and seeking to have those judgments set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeals;

               2.

               Orders Mr Christian Kurrer, Mr Salvatore Magazzu and Mr Stefano Sotgia to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the present proceedings;

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.


title: Case T-46/09: Judgment of the General Court of 22 January 2013 — Greece v Commission (EAGGF — ‘Guarantee’ Section — Expenditure excluded from financing — Processing of citrus fruits, cotton, beef and olive oil — Financial audit — Key checks — Proportionality — Recurrence — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               2.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 22 January 2013 — Greece v Commission
   (Case T-46/09) (1)

   (EAGGF - ‘Guarantee’ Section - Expenditure excluded from financing - Processing of citrus fruits, cotton, beef and olive oil - Financial audit - Key checks - Proportionality - Recurrence - Obligation to state reasons)
   2013/C 63/34
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: V. Kontolaimos, I. Chalkias, S. Charitaki and S. Papaïoannou, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Markoulli and H. Tserepa-Lacombe, acting as Agents, assisted by N. Korogiannakis)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2008/960/EC of 8 December 2008 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) (OJ 2008 L 340, p. 99), in so far as it excludes from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 90, 18.4.2009.


title: Case T-419/10: Action brought on 14 September 2010 — Ori Martin v Commission

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/60

         Action brought on 14 September 2010 — Ori Martin v Commission
   (Case T-419/10)
   ()
   2010/C 301/96
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Ori Martin SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: P. Ziotti, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of the decision of the European Commission of 30 June 2010 C(2010) 4387 final on a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.344 — Prestressing steel), in so far as it attributes to the applicant liability for the conduct penalised;

               —

               annulment or reduction of the fine imposed under Article 2 of that decision;

               —

               an order that the Commission should pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The decision contested in this case is the same as that in Case T-385/10 Arcelor/Mittal Wire France v Commission.
   The applicant maintains that the European Commission decision C(2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 is unlawful in that it makes the applicant liable solely because it (almost) wholly owns the company which is alleged to have committed the collusive acts penalised under Article 101 TFEU.
   In particular, the applicant pleads:

               —

               infringement of Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1/23, in that the Commission’s power to impose fines was time-barred in the circumstances of the case;

               —

               infringement of Article 101 TFEU and breach of the principles of the personal nature of liability and penalties, of sound administration and non-discrimination, in that the Commission goes so far as to attribute to the applicant real and personal strict liability for the possibly unlawful acts committed by the company it controls, liability subject to an irrebuttable presumption which cannot in point of fact be challenged by evidence to the contrary. That liability on the basis of ownership is unexampled and contrary to the principles laid down by Community case-law in relation to the application of Article 101 TFEU when groups of companies are concerned;

               —

               breach of the principle that capital companies enjoy limited liability by virtue of the company law common to the laws of the Member States and to the law of the European Union itself.

         Ori Martin then seeks annulment or, at least, a considerable reduction of the fine imposed.


title: Case T-653/16 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 25 August 2017 — Malta v Commission (Interim measures — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Common fisheries policy — Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 — Documents exchanged by Malta and the Commission — Access granted to Greenpeace — Application for suspension of operation — Prima facie case — Balancing of interests)

text:
               9.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 338/15

         Order of the President of the General Court of 25 August 2017 — Malta v Commission
   (Case T-653/16 R)
   ((Interim measures - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Common fisheries policy - Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 - Documents exchanged by Malta and the Commission - Access granted to Greenpeace - Application for suspension of operation - Prima facie case - Balancing of interests))
   (2017/C 338/15)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Malta (represented by: A. Buhagiar, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application pursuant to Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking the suspension of the operation of the decision of the Commission of 13 July 2016, adopted in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, relating to a request for access to documents registered under the reference GestDem2015/5711A-018-2014.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Operation of the decision of the European Commission of 13 July 2016, adopted in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, relating to a request for access to documents registered under the reference GestDem2015/5711, is suspended in so far as that decision grants access to documents originating from the Republic of Malta.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-557/12: Action brought on 17 December 2012 — RiskMetrics Solutions/OHIM (RISKMANAGER)

text:
               2.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/22

         Action brought on 17 December 2012 — RiskMetrics Solutions/OHIM (RISKMANAGER)
   (Case T-557/12)
   2013/C 63/45
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: RiskMetrics Solutions LLC (New York, United States) (represented by: I. De Freitas, Solicitor)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the contested decision in its entirety so that Community Trade Mark No 9 446 881 is accepted and proceeds through to publication;

               —

               Order OHMI to pay the appellant’s costs in relation to these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘RISKMANAGER’ for goods and services in classes 9, 35 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 9 446 881

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the CTM application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b), 7(1)(c) and 7(3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.