title: Action brought on 15 December 1997 by João Luís de Sousa Abreu and Others against Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Cases T-565/97 to T-595/97)

text:
C 166/16             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    30.5.98
The applicants claim that the Court should:                        Pleas in law and main arguments:
Ð declare the Council and the Commission jointly and               The pleas in law and main arguments are identical with
    severally liable, pursuant to Articles 215 and 178 of          those relied upon in Case T-316/97 Hermínia Fernanda
    the EC Treaty, for the damage caused by virtue of the          dos Santos Morais Antas v Council and Commission.
    transitional and training measures necessary in the
    sector to which the applicant belongs;
Ð order the Council and the Commission jointly and
    severally to pay ESC 3 126 768 by way of
    compensation for the abovementioned damage,                    Action brought on 15 December 1997 by Fernando
    together with the interest accrued, at the rate of 10 %,       EugeÂnio de Abreu and Others against Council of the
    as prescribed by law, from the date of the summons to              European Union and Commission of the European
    the date on which payment is actually made;                                            Communities
                                                                                (Cases T-518/97 to T-564/97)
Ð order the Council and the Commission to pay the                                         (98/C 166/42)
    costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
Pleas in law and main arguments:
                                                                   An action against the Council of the European Union and
The pleas in law and main arguments are identical with             the Commission of the European Communities was
those relied upon in Case T-316/97 Hermínia Fernanda               brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
dos Santos Morais Antas v Council and Commission.                  Communities on 15 December 1997 by Fernando EugeÂnio
                                                                   de Abreu and Others, residing in Portugal, represented by
                                                                   Cristina Ferreira, Francisco Espregueira Mendes, Teresa
                                                                   Fonseca and Rui GuimaraÄes Lopes, of the Oporto Bar.
                                                                   The applicants claim that the Court should:
Action brought on 15 December 1997 by Maria de Lurdes              Ð declare the Council and the Commission jointly and
Esteves Afonso and Ana Paula Afonso LourencËo de                       severally liable, pursuant to Articles 215 and 178 of
Oliveira and Others against Council of the European                    the EC Treaty, for the damage caused by virtue of the
  Union and Commission of the European Communities                     transitional and training measures necessary in the
               (Cases T-509/97 to T-517/97)                            sector to which the applicant belongs;
                       (98/C 166/41)
                                                                   Ð order the Council and the Commission jointly and
                                                                       severally to pay ESC 3 126 768 by way of
             (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                                                                       compensation for the abovementioned damage,
                                                                       together with the interest accrued, at the rate of 10 %,
An action against the Council of the European Union and                as prescribed by law, from the date of the summons to
the Commission of the European Communities was                         the date on which payment is actually made;
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 15 December 1997 by Maria de Lurdes                 Ð order the Council and the Commission to pay the
Esteves Afonso and Ana Paula Afonso LourencËo de                       costs.
Oliveira and Others, residing in Portugal, represented by
Cristina Ferreira, Francisco Espregueira Mendes, Teresa            Pleas in law and main arguments:
Fonseca and Rui GuimaraÄes Lopes, of the Oporto Bar.
                                                                   The pleas in law and main arguments are identical with
The applicants claim that the Court should:                        those relied upon in Case T-316/97 Hermínia Fernanda
                                                                   dos Santos Morais Antas v Council and Commission.
Ð declare the Council and the Commission jointly and
    severally liable, pursuant to Articles 215 and 178 of
    the EC Treaty, for the damage caused by virtue of the
    transitional and training measures necessary in the
    sector to which the applicant belongs;
                                                                   Action brought on 15 December 1997 by JoaÄo Luís de
Ð order the Council and the Commission jointly and                 Sousa Abreu and Others against Council of the European
    severally to pay ESC 3 126 768 by way of                         Union and Commission of the European Communities
    compensation for the abovementioned damage,                                   (Cases T-565/97 to T-595/97)
    together with the interest accrued, at the rate of 10 %,                              (98/C 166/43)
    as prescribed by law, from the date of the summons to
    the date on which payment is actually made;                                 (Language of the case: Portuguese)
Ð order the Council and the Commission to pay the                  An action against the Council of the European Union and
    costs.                                                         the Commission of the European Communities was
 ---pagebreak--- 30.5.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 166/17
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European         Ð alternatively, annul the fine imposed on the applicant
Communities on 15 December 1997 by JoaÄo Luís de                        by Article 2 of the decision together with Article 4 in
Sousa Abreu and Others, residing in Portugal, represented               conjunction with Article 1 of the decision;
by Cristina Ferreira, Francisco Espregueira Mendes, Teresa
Fonseca and Rui GuimaraÄes Lopes, of the Oporto Bar.               Ð in the further alternative, reduce the fine imposed on
                                                                        the applicant by Article 2 of the decision and annul
The applicants claim that the Court should:                             Article 4 in conjunction with Article 1 of the decision;
Ð declare the Council and the Commission jointly and               Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
    severally liable, pursuant to Articles 215 and 178 of
    the EC Treaty, for the damage caused by virtue of the          Pleas in law and main arguments:
    transitional and training measures necessary in the
    sector to which the applicant belongs;
                                                                   By the contested decision, which is addressed inter alia to
                                                                   the applicant, the Commission found that, following a
Ð order the Council and the Commission jointly and
                                                                   meeting in Madrid in December 1993, the applicant,
    severally to pay ESC 3 126 768 by way of
                                                                   along with other European producers of stainless steel,
    compensation for the abovementioned damage,
                                                                   had infringed Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty by
    together with the interest accrued, at the rate of 10 %,
                                                                   modifying and by applying in a concerted fashion the
    as prescribed by law, from the date of the summons to
                                                                   reference values used to calculate the alloy surcharge (the
    the date on which payment is actually made;
                                                                   alloy surcharge formula') (Article 1 of the decision). In
                                                                   the Commission's view, that practice had been served to
Ð order the Council and the Commission to pay the                  bring about a price increase.
    costs.
                                                                   The applicant was fined ECU 8 100 000 on account of
Pleas in law and main arguments:                                   that infringement (Article 2 of the decision).
The pleas in law and main arguments are identical with             Furthermore, the applicant and four other undertakings
those relied upon in Case T-316/97 Hermínia Fernanda               involved in the concertation were required to put an end
dos Santos Morais Antas v Council and Commission.                  to the infringements of Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty
                                                                   and to refrain from repeating the acts or conduct
                                                                   complained of and from adopting any measure having an
                                                                   equivalent effect (Article 4 of the decision).
                                                                   The applicant contests in its entirety that decision
Action brought on 11 March 1998 by Krupp Thyssen                   imposing a fine. In support of its claim, it pleads non-
Stainless GmbH against the Commission of the European              compliance with essential procedural requirements laid
                         Communities                               down by the ECSC Treaty and by the applicable
                       (Case T-45/98)                              legislation implementing that Treaty.
                        (98/C 166/44)
                                                                   In its first head of claim (alleging formal defects and
              (Language of the case: German)                       erroneous findings of fact), the applicant complains of the
                                                                   following:
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                  Ð it was not given adequate access to the files in the pre-
Instance of the European Communities on 11 March 1998                   litigation procedure;
by Krupp Thyssen Stainless GmbH, Bochum (Federal
Republic of Germany), represented by Otfried                       Ð there was no pre-litigation procedure with regard to
Lieberknecht,     Karlheinz    Moosecker      and    Martin             the activities of Thyssen AG in the flat stainless steel
Klusmann, Rechtsanwälte, of Messrs Bruckhaus Westrick                   sector;
Heller Löber, Düsseldorf (Federal Republic of Germany),
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                   Ð errors in the adoption of the decision;
Chambers of Axel Bonn, of Messrs Bonn & Schmitt, 7 Val
Ste Croix.
                                                                   Ð erroneous assumptions concerning the application of
                                                                        the alloy surcharge formula;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                   Ð the matters discussed at a meeting in Madrid between
Ð annul, in so far as it concerns the applicant, the
                                                                        various producers were incorrectly described;
    defendant's decision of 21 January 1998, as amended
    by the defendant's decision of 2 February 1998,
    communicated to the applicant on 6 February 1998,              Ð erroneous assessment of the practice followed in fixing
    concerning a concerted practice engaged in by                       prices;
    European producers of stainless steel with regard to
    alloy surcharges;                                              Ð incorrect assumptions in the various language versions;


title: Case C-371/03: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of  9 March 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Köln) — Siegfried Aulinger v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Foreign and security policy — Common commercial policy — Embargo on the Republics of Serbia and Montenegro — Regulation (EEC) No 1432/92 — Carriage of persons)

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/6

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 March 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Köln) — Siegfried Aulinger v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
   (Case C-371/03) (1)

   (Foreign and security policy - Common commercial policy - Embargo on the Republics of Serbia and Montenegro - Regulation (EEC) No 1432/92 - Carriage of persons)
   (2006/C 131/10)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Oberlandesgericht Köln
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Siegfried Aulinger

      Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Köln —
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 1(d) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1432/92 of 1 June 1992 prohibiting trade between the European Economic Community and the Republics of Serbia and Montenegro must be interpreted as meaning that the commercial carriage of persons to or from Serbia and Montenegro in the form of split transport was prohibited.
   ‘Split transport’ is to be understood as meaning the carriage of persons to or from the territory covered by the embargo, organised by means of a joint operation between an undertaking established in a Member State of the Community and an undertaking established in the territory covered by the embargo whereby the former provides carriage to or from the area bordering the territory covered by the embargo and the latter provides carriage from that point into the territory covered by the embargo or from inside that territory to that point (with passengers changing vehicles).

      (1)  OJ C 289 of 29.11.2003.


title: Case T-152/15 P: Appeal brought on 31 March 2015 by the European Commission against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 22 January 2015 in Joined Cases F-1/14 and F-48/14, Kakol v Commission

text:
               8.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/21

         Appeal brought on 31 March 2015 by the European Commission against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 22 January 2015 in Joined Cases F-1/14 and F-48/14, Kakol v Commission

   (Case T-152/15 P)
   (2015/C 190/24)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by J. Curral and G. Gattinara, acting as agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Danuta Kakol (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               Annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 22 January 2015 in Joined Cases F-1/14 and F-48/14, Kakol v Commission;

               —

               Refer Case F-48/14 back to the Civil Service Tribunal, the appellant having withdrawn its action in Case F-1/14;

               —

               Reserve the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal (‘the CST’) erred in law in having held, where the conditions for admissions are ‘similar’, a jury is required to give reasons for the decision and not to admit a candidate to the tests on the basis of the assessment carried out by another jury for another competition in respect of the same candidate.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging the infringement of the requirement to give reasons, the CST having recognised that the nationality of the candidates was a condition for admission, in addition to others, but which, despite that, was not capable of creating a difference between the two opinions of the competitions in question.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging the distortion of an essential matter in the case file, the CST having considered that the jury did not explain how its decision was different from that of the previous jury, even though the Commission had clearly set out that reasoning, both in its written submissions and at the hearing.


title: Case C-109/10 P: Appeal brought on 1 March 2010 by Solvay SA against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Sixth Chamber) on 17 December 2009 in Case T-57/01 Solvay v Commission

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/14

      Appeal brought on 1 March 2010 by Solvay SA against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Sixth Chamber) on 17 December 2009 in Case T-57/01 Solvay v Commission
      (Case C-109/10 P)
      (2010/C 161/21)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Appellant: Solvay SA (represented by: P.-A. Foriers, R. Jafferali, F. Louis, A. Vallery, avocats)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  Set aside the judgment delivered on 17 December 2009;

                  —

                  therefore, re-examine the action in respect of the points that were annulled and annul the Commission’s decision of 13 December 2000, in its entirety or in part, in accordance with the pleas submitted;

                  —

                  cancel the fine of EUR 19 million or, failing that, reduce that fine by a very substantial amount in order to compensate the appellant for the serious damage it suffered on account of the extraordinary length of the proceedings;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and the costs of the proceedings before the General Court.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The applicant puts forward nine pleas in support of its appeal.
      By its first plea, which consists of five parts, the appellant submits that there has been an infringement of the right to be tried within a reasonable time in so far as Commission Decision 2003/6/EC of 13 December 2000 (1) was adopted more than ten years after the beginning of the investigation or, at least, after the opening of the procedure through notification to the appellant of the Commission’s statement of objections. In particular, Solvay criticises that the General Court (i) did not undertake a comprehensive assessment of the duration, including both the administrative and the judicial phase of proceedings (first part), (ii) did not take into account the duration of proceedings before the General Court (second part), (iii) made sanctions for exceeding a reasonable time subject to proof of concrete infringement of the appellant’s procedural rights even though the two principles are separate and distinct (third part), (iv) found that no such infringement existed in the present case (fourth part), (v) misinterpreted the facts of the case in that the General Court took the view that the appellant waived its right to seek, by way of an alternative plea, a reduction in the fine because the reasonable time was exceeded (fifth part), even though the appellant expressly sought the cancellation or, at least, a reduction of the fine on those grounds.
      By its second plea, which consists of three parts, Solvay submits that there has been an infringement of Articles 14 and 20 of Council Regulation 17/62 (2) in so far as the General Court approved the Commission’s use, in the context of the procedure initiated on the basis of Article 102 TFEU, of documents that were seized in the course of inspections concerning the possible participation in agreements and/or concerted practices under Article 101 TFEU (first part). The appellant also criticises the General Court for letting the Commission use against the appellant documents that it collected by coincidence, even though the Commission would not have been able, at the time, to undertake an investigation for the purposes of collecting those documents without raising suspicion (second part). Finally, the appellant criticises the General Court for misinterpreting the facts of the case by finding that there was substantial similarity between the facts that the decision ordering the investigation sought to examine and those on the grounds of which the appellant was found guilty.
      By its third plea, which consists of six parts, the appellant claims that the General Court infringed its procedural rights in so far as it required the appellant to show that the documents which the Commission lost could have been useful for its defence (first part). Indeed, it cannot be automatically ruled out, without some sort of provisional examination of the file, that the documents in question might have influenced the Commission’s decision (second and third part). Finally, the appellant challenges the General Court’s finding that it did not show that the documents that disappeared might have been useful for its defence as regards the existence of a dominant position (fourth part), the rebate granted to the Saint-Gobain group (fifth part) and the definition of the relevant geographic market (sixth part).
      By its fourth plea, Solvay claims that there was an infringement of its rights of defence, the rules on the burden of proof and the presumption of innocence in so far as the General Court decided that the documents missing from the file would not have been useful for its defence, even though it would have been sufficient that those documents strengthen the pleas it submitted at the outset, rather than allow it to formulate new pleas (first part), and present an opportunity, even a small one, of influencing the contested decision (second part).
      By its fifth plea, the appellant claims infringement of its right to be heard following the annulment by the General Court of a first decision imposing a fine on the appellant but prior to the adoption, by the Commission, of the contested decision. Indeed, the judgment under appeal does not respond to its action for annulment and refuses to acknowledge that the Commission is under an obligation to hear the undertaking at issue where an earlier judgment of the General Court finds procedural irregularity which affected the preparatory measures.
      By its sixth plea, the appellant criticises that the General Court infringed Article 102 TFEU and failed to fulfil its obligation to state reasons when it found an alternative definition of the relevant geographic market — a Community-wide market or national markets — to be valid.
      By its seventh plea, Solvay criticises, in the light of the obligation to state reasons and Article 102 TFEU, the General Court’s finding of a dominant position in the judgment under appeal, according to which the relevant market is either Community-wide (first part) or national (second part). Furthermore, it criticises the General Court for nor taking into account exceptional circumstances which show that it did not have a dominant position (third part).
      By its eighth plea, the appellant claims an infringement of Article 102 TFEU and a failure to state the grounds in so far as the General Court took the view that the rebate of 1.5 % granted to the Saint-Gobain group constituted a fidelity rebate which had an impact on the conditions of competition.
      By its ninth plea, the appellant claims that there is a lack of statement of reasons and an infringement of Article 102 TFEU in so far as the General Court found that there was a discriminatory practice resulting from the rebate system granted to commercial partners, but did not check whether that practice created competitive disadvantages among clients of the dominant supplier (first part). Finally, Solvay criticises the General Court for not taking into account the small part represented by soda ash in its clients’ costs price.

         (1)  Commission Decision 2003/6/EC of 13 December 2000 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 82 [EC] (Case COMP/33.133-C: Soda ash — Solvay) (OJ 2003 L 10, p. 10)

         (2)  Council Regulation No 17 of 6 February 1962: First Regulation implementing Articles [81 EC] and [82 EC] (OJ 1962 13, p. 204)


title: Removal from the register of Case T-112/92

text:
11 . 11 . 95          EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 299/ 19
The applicant submits that the Council 's refusal violates the               Removal from the register of Case T- 112/92 ( ] )
fundamental rights of access to the European Union                                                  ( 95 /C 299/33 )
Institutions ' documents, as well as the principle of
protection of legitimate expectations and Articles 4(1 ) and                          (Language of the case: English )
4 ( 2 ) of Council Decision 93/73 1 /EC inasmuch as it
wrongfully applies the criteria for refusal laid down in said         By order of 11 July 1995 the President of the Fourth
provisions . It considers furthermore that the Council 's             Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
refusal should be annulled on the ground of its failure to            Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
state reasons for the refusal .
                                                                      T- 1 1 2/92 : John Cooney v. Commission of the European
                                                                      Comm unities .
                                                                      (') Q | No C : 34 , 6 . 2 . 1 993 .
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                    of 28 September 1995                                     Removal from the register of Case T-425/93 (')
in Case T-95 /94 : Chambre Syndicale Nationale des                                                  ( 95 /C 299/34 )
Entreprises de Transport de Fonds et Valeurs ( Sytraval ) and
Brink's France SARL v. Commission of the European                                     (Language of the case: English )
                       Communities ( ' )
(State aid — Complaint by a competitor — Failure to initiate          By order of 9 August 1995 the President of the First
the investigation procedure — Right to a fair hearing —               Chamber ( extended composition ) of the Court of First
                    Action for annulment)                             Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
                          ( 95 /C 299/32 )                            from the register of Case T-425/93 : David Wilcox v.
                                                                      Council of the European Union and Commission of the
                                                                      European Communities .
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                      (') OJ No C : 2.38 , 2 . 9 . 1993 .
In Case T-95/94 : Chambre Syndicale Nationale des
Entreprises de Transport de Fonds et Valeurs ( Sytraval ) and
Brink 's France SARL, represented by Jean-Michel Payre, of
the Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grande-Rue , v.                            Removal from the register of Case T-430/93 ( )
Commission of the European Communities ( agents : Michel                                            ( 95 /C 299/35 )
Nolin and Ben Smulders ), supported by the French Republic
( agents : Catherine de Salins and Jean-Marc Belorgey ) —                              (Language of the case: Erench)
application for the annulment of the Commission decision
of 31 December 1993 rejecting the applicants ' request for a          By order of 11 August 1995 the President of the First
declaration by the Commission that the French Republic                Chamber ( extended composition ) of the Court of First
has infringed Articles 92 and 93 of the Treaty by granting            Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
aid to Securipost SA — the Court of First Instance                    from the register of Case T-430/93 : Jean Trelhu v. Council
( Fourth Chamber, extended composition ), composed of                 of the European Union and Commission of the European
K. Lenaerts , President, and R. Schintgen , C. P. Briet,              Communities .
R. Garcia-Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; H. Jung,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 September 1995 , in             (') OJ No C 54 , 25 . 5 . 1993 .
which it :
 1 . annuls the Commission decision of 31 December 1993
     rejecting the applicants ' request for a declaration by the
     Commission that the French Republic has infringed                                   Removal from the register of
     Articles 92 and 93 of the Treaty by granting aid to                         Joined Cases T-436/93 to T -441 /93 (')
     Securipost;                                                                                ( 95 /C 299/36 )
2 . orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay                             (Language of the case: English)
     the costs of the applicants;
                                                                      By order of 12 July 1995 the President of the Fourth
 3 . orders the Erench Republic to bear its own costs .               Chamber ( extended composition ) of the Court of First
                                                                      Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
 (') O J No C 103 , 11.4 . 1994 .
                                                                      from the register of Joined Cases T-436/93 to T-441 /93 :
                                                                      British Petroleum Company pic , Barclays Bank pic , Flanson
                                                                      pic , Lucas Industries Public Limited Company , Mars UK
                                                                       Limited , Mars G.B. Limited , Intercontinental Trading


title: Case C-352/15 P: Appeal brought on 12 May 2015 by Edward Guja against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) made on 14 April 2015 in Case T-823/14 Guja v Poland

text:
               22.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 68/20

         Appeal brought on 12 May 2015 by Edward Guja against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) made on 14 April 2015 in Case T-823/14 Guja v Poland
   (Case C-352/15 P)
   (2016/C 068/25)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Appellant: Edward Guja (represented by: M. Szczepara, adwokat)

      Other party to the proceedings: Republic of Poland
   By order of the Court of Justice (Third Chamber) of 17 December 2015 the appeal was dismissed.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'Appel de Metz, by judgment of that court of 31 May 1995, in criminal proceedings against Rémy Schmit, the civil parties claiming damages being Robert Vergobbio and Salvatore La Mancusa (Case C-240/95)

text:
2 . 9 . 95             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 229/ 15
The applicant claims that the Court should :                           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— declare that, by failing to adopt, or in any event by                The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
     failing to communicate, the laws, regulations and                 in Case C-234/95 ( 2 ); the period prescribed for
     administrative provisions necessary to comply with                implementation of the Directive expired on 1 July 1992 .
     Commission Directive 93/67/EEC (*) of 20 July 1993
     laying down the principles for assessment of risks to man         (') OJ No L 189 , 20 . 7. 1990 , p. 17 .
     and    the   environment      of   substances   notified  in      ( 2 ) See page 13 of this Official Journal .
     accordance with Council Directive 67/548/EEC, the
     Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
     that Directive and under the EC Treaty,
— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .                        Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'Appel de
                                                                       Metz, by judgment of that court of 3 1 May 1 995 , in criminal
                                                                       proceedings against Remy Schmit, the civil parties claiming
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    damages being Robert Vergobbio and Salvatore La
                                                                                Mancusa
Article 1 8 9 of the EC Treaty, which provides that a directive
                                                                                Case C-240/95 )
is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon the
Member State to which it is addressed, means that Member                                           95/C 229/32 )
States are under an obligation to comply with the time limits
laid down in those directives for their transposition. On the          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
expiry of the relevant prescribed period on 31 October                 European Communities by a judgment of the Cour d'Appel
1993 , the Italian Republic had not adopted the provisions             Metz ( Court of Appeal ), Metz, of 31 May 1995 , which was
necessary to comply with the directives referred to in the             received at the Court Registry on 7 July 1995 , for a
form of order sought by the Commission .                               preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings against Remy
                                                                       Schmit, the civil parties claiming damages being Robert
(') OJ No L 227, 8 . 9 . 1993 , p . 9 .                                Vergobbio and Salvatore La Mancusa, on the following
                                                                       question :
                                                                       Does Article 30 of the EEC Treaty preclude national
                                                                        legislation concerning model-year dates for motor vehicles,
                                                                       which causes the administrative authorities and traders of a
                                                                        Member State to consider that, in the case of two motor
Action brought on 6 July 1995 by the Commission of the                 vehicles of the same model and make, placed on the market
 European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium                    on the same date after 1 July , one vehicle may be held out as
                         ( Case C-239/95 )
                                                                        falling under the model-year date of the following calendar
                                                                        year whereas the other, manufactured in another Member
                            95/C 229/31 )                               State and the subject of parallel importation, may not ?
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
 before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
 6 July 1995 by the Commission of the European
 Communities, represented by Hendrik van Lier, Legal                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in               Justice, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of
 Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,                   20 June 1995 , in the case of The Queen against the
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                               Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce, ex-parte:
                                                                                Accrington Beef Co. Ltd and others
 The Commission claims that the Court should :                                                    Case C-241 /95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 229/33 )
 1 . declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
       administrative measures needed to comply with Council            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
       Directive 90/385/EEC of 20 June 1990 ( 1 ) on the                 European Communities by an order of the High Court of
       approximation of the laws of the Member States relating          Justice, Queen's Bench Division, of 20 June 1995 , which
       to active implantable medical devices, the Kingdom of             was received at the Court Registry on 10 July 1995 , for a
       Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that           preliminary ruling in the case of The Queen against the
       Directive, in particular Article 16 ;                             Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce, ex-parte :
                                                                         Accrington Beef Co. Ltd and others, on the following
 2 . in the alternative, declare that, in any event, by failing to       questions :
       inform the Commission of such measures forthwith, the
       Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations           1 . Is Article 1 ( 2 ) of Commission Regulation ( EC )
       under those provisions;                                                No 214/94 of 31 January 1994 laying down detailed
                                                                              rules for the application of the Council Regulation ( EC )
 3 . order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .                          No 130/94 with regard to the import arrangements for


title: Case T-423/03: Action brought on 23 December 2003 by Elisabeth Saskia Smit against Europol

text:
C 47/36                  EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                          21.2.2004
The applicants finally claim that the Commission has violated                 The applicant submits that the reasoning for the contested
fundamental principles of Community law, such as the prin-                    decision is unsound and that that decision infringes the general
ciple of legal certainty and legitimate expectations, the prin-               principle of sound administration that reasons must be stated
ciple of independence and excellence of scientific advice, the                for decisions. The applicant also alleges infringement of
principle of proportionality, the principle of equal treatment                Article 5 of Appendix 2 to the Staff Regulations of Europol (1)
and the principle of sound administration. The applicants also                and infringement of the principle of due care.
claim that there was a lack of competence on the part of the
Commission and that the Commission misused its powers.
                                                                              (1) Council Act of 3 December 1998 laying down the staff regulations
                                                                                applicable to Europol employees (OJ 1999 C 26, p. 7).
(1) Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approxi-
    mation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating
    to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous sub-
    stances (OJ English special edition: Series I Chapter 1967, p. 234).
                                                                              Action brought on 20 December 2003 by Gerhard Kein-
                                                                              horst against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties
Action brought on 23 December 2003 by Elisabeth Saskia                                                 (Case T-428/03)
                        Smit against Europol
                                                                                (2004/C 47/69)
                           (Case T-423/03)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                            (2004/C 47/68)
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)                            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                              European Communities on 20 December 2003 by Gerhard
                                                                              Keinhorst, residing in Overijse (Belgium), represented by
                                                                              Nicolas Lhoëst, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxem-
An action against Europol was brought before the Court of                     bourg.
First Instance of the European Communities on 23 December
2003 by Elisabeth Saskia Smit, represented by P. de Casparis
and M.F. Baltussen.                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                              —     Annul the decision of the appointing authority dated
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                         23 December 2002, in so far as it did not award the
                                                                                applicant additional seniority and therefore reclassified
1.    annul the implicit rejection by Europol of her objection                      him in Grade A6, Step 1, instead of Grade A6, Step 3;
      to the decision of 19 May 2003 and, at the same time,
      annul the decision of 19 May 2003;                                      —     Annul the decision of the appointing authority dated
                                                                                14 April 2003, in so far as it:
2.    order Europol to pay the applicant compensation includ-
      ing, in any event, the costs of the present proceedings.                      —    did not fix the applicant’s classification in Grade A6,
                                                                                Step 3 upon recruitment,
                                                                                —    did not reconstruct the applicant’s career in grade
                                                                                by bringing forward the date of his promotion to A5
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                          and, if appropriate, promoting him to A4,
                                                                                —    limited the date on which the reclassification
The applicant’s application for the post of ‘Asset Administrator’                        decision took effect as regards its pecuniary effects
with Europol was rejected by the contested decision.                                     to 5 October 1995;


title: Case C-472/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pest Megyei Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 29 September 2010 — Nemzeti Fogyasztóvédelmi Hatóság v Invitel Távközlési Zrt.

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/32

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pest Megyei Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 29 September 2010 — Nemzeti Fogyasztóvédelmi Hatóság v Invitel Távközlési Zrt.
   (Case C-472/10)
   ()
   2010/C 346/53
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Pest Megyei Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Nemzeti Fogyasztóvédelmi Hatóság

      Defendant: Invitel Távközlési Zrt.

      Questions referred

               1.

               May Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts be interpreted as meaning that an unfair contract term is not binding on any consumer where a body appointed by law and competent for that purpose seeks a declaration of the invalidity of that unfair term which has become part of a consumer contract on behalf of consumers in an action in the public interest (popularis actio)?
               May Article 6(1) of that directive be interpreted, where an order which benefits consumers who are not party to the proceedings is made, or the application of an unfair standard contract term is prohibited, in an action in the public interest, as meaning that an unfair term which has become part of a consumer contract is not binding on all consumers or as regards the future, so that the court has to apply the consequences in law thereof of its own motion?

               2.

               May Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13, in conjunction with points 1(j) and 2(d) of the annex applicable by virtue of Article 3(3) of that Directive, be interpreted as meaning that where a seller or supplier provides for a unilateral amendment of a contract term without explicitly describing the method by which prices vary or giving valid reasons in the contract, that contract term is unfair ipso jure?

      (1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).


title: Case T-77/15: Judgment of the General Court of 20 April 2016 — Tronios Group International v EUIPO — Sky (SkyTec) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark SkyTec — Earlier national word mark SKY — Relative ground for refusal — Limitation in consequence of acquiescence — Article 54(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               6.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 20 April 2016 — Tronios Group International v EUIPO — Sky (SkyTec)
   (Case T-77/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark SkyTec - Earlier national word mark SKY - Relative ground for refusal - Limitation in consequence of acquiescence - Article 54(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 200/28)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Tronios Group International BV (Breda, Netherlands) (represented by: R. van Leeuwen and H. Klingenberg, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: S. Crabbe and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Sky plc (Isleworth, United Kingdom) (represented initially by J. Barry, Solicitor, and subsequently by M. Schut and A. Meijboom, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 November 2014 (Case R 1681/2013-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between British Sky Broadcasting Group plc and Tronios Group International BV.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Tronios Group International BV to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);

               3.

               Orders Sky plc to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 13.4.2015.


title: Case C-523/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 23 November 2007 — A

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/35

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 23 November 2007 — A
   (Case C-523/07)
   (2008/C 22/63)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   Referring court
   Korkein hallinto-oikeus
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: A
   Questions referred

               1.

                           (a)

                           Does Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 (1) concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, (the Brussels IIa Regulation) apply to the enforcement, such as in the present case, of a public-law decision made in connection with child protection, as a single decision, concerning the immediate taking into care of a child and his or her placement outside the home, in its entirety,

                           (b)

                           or, having regard to the provision in Article 1(2)(d) of the regulation, only to the part of the decision relating to the placement outside the home?

               2.

               How is the concept of habitual residence in Article 8(1) of the regulation, like the associated Article 13(1), to be interpreted in Community law, bearing in mind in particular the situation in which a child has a permanent residence in one Member State but is staying in another Member State, carrying on a peripatetic life there?

               3.

                           (a)

                           If it is considered that the child's habitual residence is not in the latter Member State, on what conditions may an urgent measure (taking into care) nevertheless be taken in that Member State on the basis of Article 20(1) of the regulation?

                           (b)

                           Is a protective measure within the meaning of Article 20(1) of the regulation solely a measure which can be taken under national law, and are the provisions of national law concerning that measure binding when the article is applied?

                           (c)

                           Must the case, after the taking of the protective measure, be transferred of the court's own motion to the court of the Member State with jurisdiction?

               4.

               If the court of a Member State has no jurisdiction at all, must it dismiss the case as inadmissible or transfer it to the court of the other Member State?

      (1)  OJ L 338, p. 1.


title: Case T-81/13: Action brought on 12 February 2013 — FTI Touristik v OHIM (BigXtra)

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/32

         Action brought on 12 February 2013 — FTI Touristik v OHIM (BigXtra)
   (Case T-81/13)
   2013/C 108/80
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: FTI Touristik GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by A. Parr, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 November 2012 in Case R 2521/12011-1;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘BigXtra’ for goods and services in Classes 16, 35, 39, 41, 42 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 9 925 868

      Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case C-427/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 18 September 2014  — Valsts ieņēmumu dienests v SIA ‘Veloserviss’

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/21

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 18 September 2014 — Valsts ieņēmumu dienests v SIA ‘Veloserviss’
   (Case C-427/14)
   2014/C 421/30
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Augstākā tiesa

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

      Defendant: SIA ‘Veloserviss’

      Questions referred

   Should Article 78(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (1) of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code be interpreted as meaning that the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations limits the possibility of undertaking for a second time a post-clearance examination and revising the results of the first post-clearance examination?
   May the national law of a Member State establish the procedure for the undertaking of post-clearance examinations provided for in Article 78(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992, establishing the Community Customs Code, and limits on the revision of the results of those examinations?
   Should Article 78(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992, establishing the Community Customs Code, be interpreted as meaning that national legislation may legitimately contain limitations on the revision of the results of a first post-clearance examination, if information is received indicating that the provisions governing the customs procedure were applied on the basis of incorrect and incomplete information, a matter which was not known at the time of adopting the decision on the first post-clearance examination?

      (1)  OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.


title: Case T-225/12: Action brought on 29 May 2012 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM — LĺDL MUSIC (LIDL express)

text:
               28.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 227/25

         Action brought on 29 May 2012 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM — LĺDL MUSIC (LIDL express)
   (Case T-225/12)
   2012/C 227/43
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

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

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: LĺDL MUSIC, spol. s r.o. (Brno, Czech Republic)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and Designs) of 21 March 2012 (R 2379/2010-1);

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘LIDL express’ for goods in class 15 — Community trade mark application No 6 857 536

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: National figurative mark and community word mark ‘LÍDL MUSIC’ for goods in class 15

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Article 15(1) in combination with Article 42(2) and (3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 and Rule 22(3) and (4) of Commission Regulation No 2868/95;

               —

               Infringement of Article 15(1)(a) in combination with Article 42(2) and (3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case F-73/12: Action brought on 17 July 2012 — ZZ and Others v EIB

text:
               29.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 295/33

         Action brought on 17 July 2012 — ZZ and Others v EIB
   (Case F-73/12)
   2012/C 295/58
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Investment Bank

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   First, annulment of the decisions contained in salary slips to apply the general decision of the European Investment Bank setting a salary progression capped at 2.8% for all staff and the decision establishing a merit grid entailing the loss of 1 % of salary and, second, an order that the defendant pay the difference in remuneration together with interest on arrears and damages.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decisions to apply to the applicants the decision of the EIB’s Board of Directors of 13 December 2011 setting a salary progression capped at 2.8% and the decision of the EIB’s Management Committee of 14 February 2012 establishing a merit grid entailing the loss of 1 % of salary, decisions that are contained in the salary slips of April 2012, and annul to the same extent all the decisions contained in subsequent salary slips;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the difference between the remuneration resulting from the aforementioned decisions of the EIB’s Board of Directors of 13 December 2011 and of the EIB’s Management Committee of 14 February 2012 and that paid in application of the preceding salary scheme, with interest on arrears to be added to that difference in remuneration with effect from 12 April 2012 and then on the 12th day of every month until full payment, the rate of interest being the ECB rate, increased by three percentage points;

               —

               order the defendant to pay damages for the loss suffered by reason of the loss of purchasing power, such loss being assessed equitably, and on a provisional basis, at 1.5% of the monthly remuneration of each applicant;

               —

               order the EIB to pay the costs.


title: Case T-176/11: Order of the General Court of 10 December 2013 — Carbunión v Council (Action for annulment — State aid — Decision on aid intended to facilitate the closure of uncompetitive coal mines — Partial annulment — Non-severability — Inadmissibility)

text:
               8.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/20

         Order of the General Court of 10 December 2013 — Carbunión v Council
   (Case T-176/11) (1)

   (Action for annulment - State aid - Decision on aid intended to facilitate the closure of uncompetitive coal mines - Partial annulment - Non-severability - Inadmissibility)
   2014/C 39/33
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Federación Nacional de Empresarios de Minas de Carbón (Carbunión) (Madrid (Spain)) (represented by: K. Desai, Solicitor, S. Cisnal de Ugarte and M. Peristeraki, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by: F. Florindo Gijón and A. Lo Monaco, and subsequently by: F. Florindo Gijón and K. Michoel, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by É. Gippini Fournier, L. Flynn and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for partial suspension of operation of Council Decision 2010/787/EU of 10 December 2010 on State aid to facilitate the closure of uncompetitive coal mines (OJ 2010 L 336, p. 24)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.

               2.

               The Federación Nacional de Empresarios de Minas de Carbón (Carbunión) shall, in addition to bearing its own costs, pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

               3.

               The European Commission shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 152, 21.5.2011.


title: Case T-425/12: Action brought on 26 September 2012 — Sport Eybl & Sports Experts v OHIM — Elite Licensing (e)

text:
               17.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/36

         Action brought on 26 September 2012 — Sport Eybl & Sports Experts v OHIM — Elite Licensing (e)
   (Case T-425/12)
   2012/C 355/76
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Sport Eybl & Sports Experts GmbH (Wels, Austria) (represented by: B. Gumpoldsberger, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Elite Licensing Company SA (Fribourg, Switzerland)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the part of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 26 June 2012 in Case R 881/2011-1 with which the opponent’s appeal was upheld and the registration of the Community trade mark applied for by the applicant in respect of Classes 9, 12, 18, 22, 25 and 28 was refused; and

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark including the letter ‘e’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 12, 18, 22, 25, 28 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 6 220 421

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Elite Licensing Company SA

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the national, international and Community figurative mark including the letter ‘e’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 28, 32, 35, 38, 41, 43 and 44

      Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was upheld in part

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case C-644/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 December 2016 — Hungary v Commission (Appeal — Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 — Common organisation of agricultural markets — Fruit and vegetable sector — Article 103e — National financial assistance granted to producer organisations in the fruit and vegetable sector — Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 — Article 97 — Commission decision concerning the reimbursement by the European Union of the national financial assistance granted by Hungary to producer organisations)

text:
               13.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/8

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 December 2016 — Hungary v Commission
   (Case C-644/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 - Common organisation of agricultural markets - Fruit and vegetable sector - Article 103e - National financial assistance granted to producer organisations in the fruit and vegetable sector - Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 - Article 97 - Commission decision concerning the reimbursement by the European Union of the national financial assistance granted by Hungary to producer organisations))
   (2017/C 046/10)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Parties

      Appellant: Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér and E.E. Sebestyén, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A Lewis and B. Béres, Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Hungary to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.


title: Judgment of the Court of 9 March 1999 in Case C-212/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret): Centros Ltd v Erhvervs- og Selskabsstyrelsen (Freedom of establishment - Establishment of a branch by a company not carrying on any actual business - Circumvention of national law - Refusal to register)

text:
15.5.1999                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 136/3
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                        conformity with Directive 92/50 and the requirement that the
                                                                               rights of individuals must be protected effectively, the national
                                                                               court must determine whether the relevant provisions of its
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                      domestic law allow recognition of a right for individuals to bring
                                                                               an appeal in relation to awards of public service contracts. In
                          of 4 March 1999                                      circumstances such as those arising in the case in the main
                                                                               proceedings, the national court must determine in particular
                                                                               whether such a right of appeal may be exercised before the same
in Case C-258/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling                           bodies as those established to hear appeals concerning the award
from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat für Kärnten):                           of public supply contracts and public works contracts.
Hospital Ingenieure Krankenhaustechnik Planungs-
Gesellschaft mbH (HI) v Landeskrankenanstalten-                            3. Services of the kind with which the defendant’s invitation to
                       Betriebsgesellschaft (1)                                tender is concerned, namely tasks relating to the preparation and
                                                                               execution of projects for the construction of a paediatric clinic in
                                                                               a hospital and the corresponding medical facilities, fall within
(Public service contracts — Effect of a directive not trans-                   Category No 12 of Annex I A to Directive 92/50/EEC.
                      posed into national law)
                                                                           4. The provisions of Titles I and II of Directive 92/50/EEC may be
                           (1999/C 136/04)                                     relied on directly by individuals before national courts. As regards
                                                                               the provisions of Titles III to VI, they may also be relied on by an
                                                                               individual before a national court if it is clear from an individual
                                                                               examination of their wording that they are unconditional and
                    (Language of the case: German)                             sufficiently clear and precise.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     (1) OJ C 271, 6.9.1997.
                    in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-258/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat für
Kärnten for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Hospital Ingenieure Krankenhaus-
technik Planungs-Gesellschaft mbH (HI) and Landeskrankenan-
stalten-Betriebsgesellschaft — on the interpretation of Council                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordi-
nation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions                                         of 9 March 1999
relating to the application of review procedures to the award
of public supply and public works contracts (OJ L 395,
30.12.1989, p. 33) and of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of                   in Case C-212/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for                the Højesteret): Centros Ltd v Erhvervs- og Selskabs-
the award of public service contracts (OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p.                                           styrelsen (1)
1) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: P. J. G. Kapteyn
(Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch, J. L. Murray,           (Freedom of establishment — Establishment of a branch
H. Ragnemalm and R. Schintgen, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate                 by a company not carrying on any actual business —
General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,               Circumvention of national law — Refusal to register)
has given a judgment on 4 March 1999, in which it has ruled:
                                                                                (1999/C 136/05)
1. The conditions laid down in Article 2(8) of Council Directive
     89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the
     laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the
                                                                                (Language of the case: Danish)
     application of review procedures to the award of public supply
     and public works contracts do not apply to authorities whose
     composition and functioning are governed by rules such as those
     to which that body is subject.                                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
2. Neither Article 2(8) nor any other provisions of Directive
     89/665/EEC may be interpreted as meaning that, if Council             In Case C-212/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
     Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordi-           the EC Treaty from the Højesteret for a preliminary ruling in
     nation of procedures for the award of public service contracts has    the proceedings pending before that court between Centros
     not been transposed by the end of the period prescribed for that      Ltd and Erhvervs- og Selskabsstyrelsen — on the interpretation
     purpose, the review bodies in the Member States with jurisdiction     of Articles 52, 56 and 58 of the EC Treaty — the Court,
     to review procedures for the award of public supply contracts and     composed of: G. C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P. J. G. Kap-
     public works contracts, established under Article 2(8) of Directive   teyn, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann, Presidents of
     89/665, may also hear appeals concerning procedures for the           Chamber, G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gul-
     award of public service contracts. However, in order to observe       mann, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward, H. Ragnemalm, L. Sevón,
     the requirement that domestic law must be interpreted in              M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and K. M. Ioannou,
 ---pagebreak--- C 136/4                   EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         15.5.1999
Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate General; H. von Holstein,                                      ORDER OF THE COURT
Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 March 1999, in
which it has ruled:                                                                                of 2 March 1999
It is contrary to Articles 52 and 58 of the EC Treaty for a Member
State to refuse to register a branch of a company formed in accordance     in Joined Cases C-231/98 and C-232/98 (reference for a
with the law of another Member State in which it has its registered        preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance
office but in which it conducts no business where the branch is            d’Épinal: SA Lamboley (C-231/98), Bouctot (C-232/98) v
intended to enable the company in question to carry on its entire                           Administration des Impôts (1)
business in the State in which that branch is to be created, while
avoiding the need to form a company there, thus evading application        (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Manifestly
of the rules governing the formation of companies which, in that                                   identical question)
State, are more restrictive as regards the paying up of a minimum
share capital. That interpretation does not, however, prevent the
authorities of the Member State concerned from adopting any                                         (1999/C 136/07)
appropriate measure for preventing or penalising fraud, either in
relation to the company itself, if need be in cooperation with the
Member State in which it was formed, or in relation to its members,                            (Language of the case: French)
where it has been established that they are in fact attempting, by
means of the formation of a company, to evade their obligations            In joined Cases C-231/98 and C-232/98: reference to the
towards private or public creditors established in the territory of the    Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal de
Member State concerned.                                                    Grande Instance d’Épinal (France) for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                           the proceedings pending before that court between SA Lam-
(1) OJ C 228, 26.7.1997.                                                   boley (C-231/98), Bouctot (C-232/98) and Administration des
                                                                           Impôts on the interpretation of Article 95 of the EC Treaty —
                                                                           the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President,
                                                                           P. J. G. Kapteyn, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann,
                                                                           Presidents of Chambers, G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de
                                                                           Almeida, C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward, H.
                     ORDER OF THE COURT                                    Ragnemalm, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), Judges;
                                                                           F. G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an
                                                                           order on 2 March 1999, the operative part of which is as
                            of 2 March 1999                                follows:
in Case C-422/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal de Première Instance de Bruxelles): Colonia                   Article 95 of the EC Treaty does not preclude the application of
Versicherung AG Zweigniederlassung München and                             national rules on motor vehicle taxation which provide for an increase
                      Others v Belgian State (1)                           in the progression coefficient of the kind at issue in the main
                                                                           proceedings, in so far as that increase does not have the effect of
    (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Inadmissibility)                 favouring the sales of vehicles of domestic manufacture over the sale
                                                                           of vehicles imported from other Member States.
                            (1999/C 136/06)
                                                                           (1) OJ C 278, 5.9.1998.
                     (Language of the case: French)
In Case C-422/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty from the Tribunal de Première Instance de
Bruxelles for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Colonia Versicherung AG Zweignie-
derlassung München and Others v Belgian State on the
interpretation of Article 30 of the EC Treaty — the Court,                 Action brought on 10 February 1999 by the Commission
composed of: G. C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P. J. G. Kap-           of the European Communities against the French Republic
teyn, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann (Rapporteur),
Presidents of Chambers, G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de
Almeida, C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward, H. Ragne-                                        (Case C-38/99)
malm, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 2 March                                          (1999/C 136/08)
1999, the operative part of which is as follows:
The reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Tribunal de             An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Première Instance de Bruxelles, by judgment of 10 November 1998,           Court of Justice of the European Communities on 10 February
is inadmissible.                                                           1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                           represented by Paolo Stancanelli, of its Legal Service, and
                                                                           Olivier Couvert-Castéra, a national civil servant on secondment
(1) OJ C 20, 23.1.1999.                                                    to the Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for
                                                                           service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
                                                                           Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.


title: Case C-351/06: Order of the President of the Court of 6 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/29

         Order of the President of the Court of 6 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-351/06) (1)

   (2007/C 96/57)

      Language of the case: German

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

      (1)  OJ C 249, 14.10.2006.


title: Case T-322/00: Action brought on 13 October 2000 by Cecilio Alonso de Miguel and 20 Others against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 335/50                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        25.11.2000
Action brought on 30 October 2000 by Sinaga, Sociedade                          the forecast made in Regulation (EC) No 1481/2000 are
de Indústrias Agrı́colas Açoreanas, SA, against the Com-                       unfair and unreasonable.
            mission of the European Communities
                                                                          (1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1481/2000 of 6 July 2000
                          (Case T-321/00)                                     establishing the sugar forecast supply balance for 2000/01 for the
                                                                              Azores, Madeira and the Canary Islands provided for in Council
                          (2000/C 335/95)                                     Regulations (EEC) No 1600/92 and (EEC) No 1601/92 (OJ 2000
                                                                              L 167, p. 6).
                  (Language of the case: Portuguese)
An action against was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 30 October 2000
by Sinaga, Sociedade de Indústrias Agrı́colas Açoreanas, SA,             Action brought on 13 October 2000 by Cecilio Alonso de
whose registered office is at 75 Rua de Lisboa, Ponta Delgada,            Miguel and 20 Others against Commission of the Euro-
Azores, represented by Dr Mário Marques Mendes, with an                                          pean Communities
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse
May, 398 Route d’Esch, Luxembourg.                                                                  (Case T-322/00)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                         (2000/C 335/96)
—     find the application admissible;                                                        (Language of the case: French)
—     annul that part of Regulation No 1481/2000 (1) which                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      reads ‘objective data provided by the Portuguese ...                ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      authorities in line with local market requirements’ and             European Communities on 13 October 2000 by Cecilio Alon-
      the Annex thereto in so far as it establishes the sugar             so de Miguel and 20 Others, represented by Jean-Noël Louis et
      forecast supply balance for the Azores and hold that                Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar.
      earlier legislation continues to produce its effects;
                                                                          The applicants claim that the Court should:
—     order the Commission of the European Communities to
      pay the costs.                                                      —     annul the decision of the Commission rejecting the
                                                                                request submitted by the applicants for the repayment of
                                                                                the full amount paid by way of compliance with Spanish
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 court orders, subject to deductions of entitlement to
                                                                                pension rights, pursuant to Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to
—     Infringement of Article 190 of the EC Treaty (now
                                                                                the Staff Regulations and of the interest calculated, in
      Article 253 EC) and Council Decision No 1999/468/EC
                                                                                accordance with the general implementing provisions, at
      of 28 June 1999: breach of an essential procedural
                                                                                the rate of 3,5 % per annum solely in respect of the
      requirement
                                                                                periods for which the rights credited have been reassessed;
—     Infringement of Article 190 of the EC Treaty (now                   —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
      Article 253 EC): manifestly inadequate and inconsistent
      statement of reasons
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
—     Infringement of Articles 2, 3, and 8 of Council Regulation
      (EEC) No 1600/92 of 15 June 1992: the forecast supply               In support of their application, the applicants allege:
      balance does not take into account traditional trade flows
                                                                          —     infringement of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations;
—     Infringement of Article 227 of the EC Treaty (now, after
      amendment, Article 299 EC): failure to take account                 —     infringement of Article 11 of Annex VIII to the Staff
      of the said provision when interpreting and applying                      Regulations and of Article 4(2) of the general
      legislative provisions applicable to the extremely remote                 implementing provisions;
      areas                                                               —     unjust enrichment of the Communities, to the detriment
                                                                                of the applicants;
—     Infringement of Article 4(1) of the EC Treaty (now
      Article 7(1) EC): the Commission has exercised its execu-           —     absence of a legal basis; and
      tive powers in a manifestly abusive and unlawful manner
                                                                          —     breach of the general legal principle according to which
—     Breach of the principle of proportionality: the effects of                costs shall follow the event.


title: Case C-377/16: Action brought on 7 July 2016 — Kingdom of Spain v European Parliament

text:
               29.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/13

         Action brought on 7 July 2016 — Kingdom of Spain v European Parliament
   (Case C-377/16)
   (2016/C 314/19)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. J. García-Valdecasas Dorrego, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Call for Expressions of Interest — Contract Staff — Function Group I — Drivers (F/M) — EP/CAST/S/16/2016. (1)

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

                  First plea: infringement of Articles 1 and 2 of Regulation 1/58, (2) Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (3) (the Charter) and Article 1d of the Staff Regulations by imposing the restriction, which extends to the application form, that communication between EPSO and the applicant should be solely in English, French and German.

               2.

                  Second plea: infringement of Article 82 of the Conditions of Employment of other servants contained in the Staff Regulations, by requiring satisfactory knowledge of a second official language of the European Union when that knowledge is not necessary for the performance of the duties that the successful applicants will be called upon to carry out.

               3.

                  Third plea: infringement of Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation No 1/58, Article 22 of the Charter, Article 1d(1) and (6) of the Staff Regulations, and Article 82 of the Conditions of Employment of other servants, because the choice of second language is improperly restricted to solely three languages, namely English, French and German, to the exclusion of the other official languages of the European Union.

               4.

                  Fourth plea: the choice of English, French and German, as the second language of the call for expressions of interest, constitutes an arbitrary choice that gives rise to discrimination on the ground of language prohibited by Article 1 of Regulation 1/58, Article 22 of the Charter and Article 1d(1) and (6) of the Staff Regulations.

      (1)
         OJ 2016, C 131 A, p. 1.

      (2)  Council Regulation No 1 of 15 April 1958 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (OJ 1958, 17, p. 385), as last amended by Council Regulation (EU) No 517/2013 (
         OJ 2013, L 158, p. 1
      ).

      (3)
         OJ 2016, C 202, p. 389.


title: Case C-148/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 1 (Commercial Court No 1), Spain lodged on 9 April 2008 — Finn Mejnertsen v Betina Mandal Barsoe

text:
               7.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 1 (Commercial Court No 1), Spain lodged on 9 April 2008 — Finn Mejnertsen v Betina Mandal Barsoe
   (Case C-148/08)
   (2008/C 142/31)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Referring court
   Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 1 (Commercial Court No 1), Spain
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Finn Mejnertsen

      Defendant: Betina Mandal Barsoe
   Questions referred

               1.

               For the purposes of Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty of European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community, should Denmark be considered to be a Member State within the meaning of Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 (1) on insolvency proceedings?

               2.

               Does the fact that that Regulation is subject to that Protocol mean that that Regulation does not form part of the body of Community law in that country?

               3.

               Does the fact that Regulation No 1346/2000 is not binding on and is not applicable in Denmark mean that other Member States are not to apply that Regulation in respect of the recognition and enforcement of judicial declarations of insolvency handed down in that country, or, on the other hand, that other Member States are obliged, unless they have made derogations, to apply that Regulation when the judicial declaration of insolvency is handed down in Denmark and is presented for recognition and enforcement in other Member States, in particular, in Spain?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of the Council, of 29 May 2000 (OJ L 160, p. 1).


title: Case C-366/14: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Budapesti XX., XXI. és XXIII. kerületi bíróság — Hungary) — Herrenknecht AG v Hév-Sugár kft (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Manifest inadmissibility — Absence of sufficient information concerning the factual background and the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the question referred for a preliminary ruling)

text:
               19.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/15

      Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Budapesti XX., XXI. és XXIII. kerületi bíróság — Hungary) — Herrenknecht AG v Hév-Sugár kft
      (Case C-366/14) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Manifest inadmissibility - Absence of sufficient information concerning the factual background and the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the question referred for a preliminary ruling)
      (2015/C 016/22)
      Language of the case: Hungarian

         Referring court

      Budapesti XX., XXI. és XXIII. kerületi bíróság

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Herrenknecht AG

         Defendant: Hév-Sugár kft

         Operative part of the order

      The request for a preliminary ruling brought by the Budapesti XX., XXI. és XXIII. kerületi bíróság (Hungary), by decision of 11 July 2014 (Case C-366/14), is manifestly inadmissible.

         (1)  OJ C 351, 6.10.2014.


title: Case T-139/17 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 23 March 2017 — Kibelisa v Council (Application for interim measures — Restrictive measures — Democratic Republic of the Congo — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency)

text:
               6.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/23

         Order of the President of the General Court of 23 March 2017 — Kibelisa v Council
   (Case T-139/17 R)
   ((Application for interim measures - Restrictive measures - Democratic Republic of the Congo - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency))
   (2017/C 178/32)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Roger Kibelisa (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: O. Okito and A. Ouannès, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Re:

   Application based on Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU, seeking suspension of the operation of Council Regulation (EU) 2016/2230 of 12 December 2016 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2016 L 336 I, p. 1).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case C-334/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 6 July 2015 — María Pilar Planes Bresco v Comunidad Autónoma de Aragón

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/21

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 6 July 2015 — María Pilar Planes Bresco v Comunidad Autónoma de Aragón
   (Case C-334/15)
   (2015/C 302/27)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: María Pilar Planes Bresco

      Respondent: Comunidad Autónoma de Aragón

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Articles 43 and 44 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (1) of 29 September 2003 be interpreted as precluding national legislation which excludes from treatment as eligible hectares all areas of permanent pasture declared by a farmer in excess of those which were taken into account at the relevant time for the purpose of determining the normal entitlements due to that farmer, making the inclusion of those areas, and therefore the replacement of arable land with pasture, conditional on the pasture being genuinely given over to the rearing of livestock in the specific financial year in respect of which the farmer seeks to activate the payment entitlements?
               And, should that question be answered in the negative,

               2.

               Must Article 29 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003, in so far as it excludes payments under support schemes for beneficiaries of such schemes ‘where it is established that they artificially created the conditions required for obtaining such payments with a view to obtaining an advantage contrary to the objectives of that support scheme’, be interpreted as not permitting States to adopt general measures which reduce the number of ‘eligible hectares’ (of permanent pasture) by laying down general situations in which the beneficiary will be presumed to have artificially created the conditions required for obtaining payment without establishing, specifically and in relation to a particular farmer, the activity carried on by that farmer and his conduct?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001

      OJ 2003 L 270, p. 1.