title: Case T-126/01: Action brought on 8 June 2001 by Eduardo Vieira SA against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 245/22                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         1.9.2001
Action brought on 8 June 2001 by Eduardo Vieira SA                              The EC/Argentina Agreement contains no provision
    against Commission of the European Communities                              governing suspension, withdrawal or reduction of Com-
                                                                                munity assistance granted with a view to the setting up
                                                                                of a joint company, nor does it contain any reference to
                         (Case T-126/01)                                        general legislation in that regard. In view of such a legal
                                                                                lacuna, the Commission has deliberately failed to take
                                                                                into account that what is involved is a particular legal
                         (2001/C 245/36)                                        framework, namely an international agreement (lex speci-
                                                                                alis), and has applied general legislation instead, which
                                                                                governs exclusively Community situations in the context
                                                                                of structural funds. The applicant claims that the Com-
                                                                                mission ought to have based itself on general legislation
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                              while taking account of the special nature of international
                                                                                agreements and, in particular, of the role of the joint
                                                                                committee and of the Argentinian authorities.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 8 June 2001 by Eduardo Vieira,                   —      Secondly, and in the alternative, the irregularity alleged
whose registered office is at Vigo (Spain), represented by                      by the Commission in order to justify its decision to
Ramón Garcia-Gallardo and Mª Dolores Domı́nguez Pérez.                         reduce the assistance does not in fact exist.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                In the applicant’s view, the Commission has misassessed
—     find the present application admissible;                                  the facts and incorrectly interpreted the EC/Argentina
                                                                                Agreement in so far as, first, the decision taken by the
—     join the present action to Case T-44/01,                                  undertaking which owns the vessel, joint company Vieira
                                                                                Argentina SA, to abandon the Argentinian fishing banks
                                                                                was justified, since it was taken, in view of the poor state
—     annul Commission Decision C(2001) 680 final of                            of stocks of Patagonian toothfish and the measures
      19 March 2001 reducing the assistance granted to                          adopted by the Argentinian authorities, as the only option
      ‘Sociedad Anónima Eduardo Vieira’ by Commission                          if the viability of the company was to be maintained and
      Decision C(95)1910 of 25 July 1995, amended by                            the exported vessel to continue to operate; moreover, the
      Decision C(96) 584 final/2 of 4 march 1996, for a project                 decision was taken with the express authorisation of the
      relating to the setting-up of joint companies in the fishing              Argentinian authorities.
      sector (ARG/ESP/SM/26-94);
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                                The applicant further states that the contested decision is
                                                                                inconsistent, since it reduces the assistance granted to the
                                                                                Community shipbuilder, but is silent with regard to the
                                                                                financial contribution granted to the joint company
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 (Vieira Argentina SA), which owns and operates the
                                                                                vessel. The Commission thus disregards, once again, the
                                                                                fact that it is a one-off grant of assistance made up of two
                                                                                indissociable parts.
The Commission bases its decision to reduce the Community
financial assistance (1) on the fact that the Argentinian joint
undertaking which owned the vessel decided that the vessel
should fish in international waters, outside Argentinian waters,
a decision for which no reasons were given and which,
moreover, was never approved by the Commission.                          (1) Assistance granted by the Commission in 1995, in the context of
                                                                             Council Regulation (EEC) No 3447/93 of 28 September 1993 on
                                                                             the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Economic
                                                                             Community and the Argentine Republic on relations in the sea
The applicant claims that the contested decision is null and                 fisheries sector (OJ 1993 L 318, p. 1).
void on the following grounds:
—     First, the legal basis used by the Commission in order to
      determine the applicable procedure in order to reduce the
      contribution and calculate its amount is erroneous.


title: Judgment of the Court 19 March 2002 in Case C-476/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep): H. Lommers v Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserĳ (Social policy — Equal treatment of men and women — Derogations — Measures to promote equality of opportunity between men and women — Subsidised nursery places made available by a Ministry to its staff — Places reserved only for children of female officials, save in cases of emergency, to be determined by the employer)

text:
18.5.2002               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                               C 118/7
a vehicle registered in another Member State to register in the first                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Member State and imposing on it one or more of the following
conditions:
                                                                                19 March 2002
—    a requirement that the person in whose name the vehicle is             in Case C-476/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
     registered in the Member State of use reside or have a place of        the Centrale Raad van Beroep): H. Lommers v Minister
     business there, in so far as it obliges a leasing undertaking                    van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij (1)
     either to have a principal place of business in that Member
     State or to accept registration of the vehicle in the name of the
     lessee and the consequent limitation of its rights over the vehicle;
                                                                            (Social policy — Equal treatment of men and women —
                                                                            Derogations — Measures to promote equality of opportunity
                                                                            between men and women — Subsidised nursery places made
                                                                            available by a Ministry to its staff — Places reserved only
                                                                            for children of female officials, save in cases of emergency,
—    a requirement to insure the vehicle with an authorised insurer                          to be determined by the employer)
     in the Member State of use, if that requirement implies that the
     insurer must have its principal place of business in that Member
     State, as the home State within the meaning of the non-life
     insurance directives, and have ‘official authorisation’ there;                                     (2002/C 118/09)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
—    a requirement of a roadworthiness test when the vehicle has
     already undergone such testing in the Member State where the           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
     leasing company is established, save where that requirement is                              in the European Court Reports)
     aimed at verifying that the vehicle satisfies the conditions
     imposed on vehicles registered in the Member State of use that
     are not covered by the tests carried out in the Member State
     where the leasing company is established and/or, if the vehicle
     has in the meantime been used on the public highway, that its
     condition has not deteriorated since it was tested in that latter
     Member State, provided similar testing is imposed where a              In Case C-476/99: Reference to the Court under Article 234
     vehicle previously tested in the Member State of use is presented      EC by the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) for a
     for registration in that State;                                        preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                                                                            court between H. Lommers and Minister van Landbouw,
                                                                            Natuurbeheer en Visserij, on the interpretation of Article 2(1)
                                                                            and (4) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976
                                                                            on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for
                                                                            men and women as regards access to employment, vocational
—    payment, in the Member State of use, of a consumption tax the          training and promotion, and working conditions (OJ 1976
     amount of which is not proportionate to the duration of the            L 39, p. 40), the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias,
     registration of the vehicle in that State.                             President, P. Jann, F. Macken and N. Colneric (Presidents of
                                                                            Chambers), C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur),
                                                                            J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and V. Skouris, Judges; S. Alber,
                                                                            Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has
                                                                            given a judgment on 19 March 2002, in which it has ruled:
(1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.                                                    Article 2(1) and (4) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February
                                                                            1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for
                                                                            men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training
                                                                            and promotion, and working conditions does not preclude a scheme
                                                                            set up by a Minister to tackle extensive under-representation of
                                                                            women within his Ministry under which, in a context characterised
                                                                            by a proven insufficiency of proper, affordable care facilities, a limited
                                                                            number of subsidised nursery places made available by the Ministry
                                                                            to its staff is reserved for female officials alone whilst male officials
                                                                            may have access to them only in cases of emergency, to be determined
 ---pagebreak--- C 118/8                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      18.5.2002
by the employer. That is so, however, only in so far, in particular, as     1.    Dismisses the application;
the said exception in favour of male officials is construed as allowing
those of them who take care of their children by themselves to have         2.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear
access to that nursery places scheme on the same conditions as female             two thirds of the costs and the Italian Republic to bear one
officials.                                                                        third of the costs.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.
(1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                                 19 March 2002
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                  in Case C-13/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Republic of Ireland (1)
                            7 March 2002
                                                                            (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                            Failure to adhere within the prescribed period to the Berne
                                                                            Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works
in Case C-10/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                            (Paris Act of 24 July 1971) — Failure to fulfil obligations
                      ties v Italian Republic (1)
                                                                            under Article 228(7) of the EC Treaty (now, after amend-
                                                                            ment, Article 300(7) EC) in conjunction with Article 5 of
                                                                                Protocol 28 to the EEA Agreement)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Community own resources — Import from third countries of
                 goods destined for San Marino)                                                       (2002/C 118/11)
                           (2002/C 118/10)                                                      (Language of the case: English)
                     (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                            In Case C-13/00, Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                            represented by K. Banks and M. Desantes, acting as Agents,
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Republic of
                    in the European Court Reports)                          Ireland (Agent: initially M.A. Buckley, and, subsequently,
                                                                            D.J. O’Hagan), supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain
                                                                            and Northern Ireland (Agent: G. Amodeo, assisted by M.
                                                                            Hoskins, barrister): Application for a declaration that, by
                                                                            failing to obtain its adherence before 1 January 1995 to the
In Case C-10/00, Commission of the European Communities                     Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic
(Agents: E. Traversa and H. P. Hartvig) v Italian Republic                  Works (Paris Act of 24 July 1971), Ireland has failed to fulfil
(Agent: U. Leanza, assisted by I. M. Braguglia): Application for            its obligations under Article 228(7) of the EC Treaty (now,
a declaration that, by not making available to the Commission               after amendment, Article 300(7) EC) in conjunction with
the sum of ITL 29 223 322 226 and by not paying default                     Article 5 of Protocol 28 to the Agreement on the European
interest on that amount from 1 January 1996, the Italian                    Economic Area of 2 May 1992 (OJ 1994 L 1, p. 3), the Court,
Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Com-                composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P. Jann,
munity provisions relating to the Communities’ own resources,               F. Macken, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr (Presidents of
the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President                  Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet
of the Chamber, A. La Pergola and C.W.A. Timmermans                         (Rapporteur), M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen, V. Skouris, J.N. Cunha
(Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,            Rodrigues and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges;J. Mischo, Advo-
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                   cate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on
7 March 2002, in which it:                                                  19 March 2002, in which it:


title: Case T-731/14: Order of the General Court of 8 October 2015 — Agrotikos Synetairismos Profitis Ilias v Council (Action for annulment — Common Foreign and Security Policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/55

         Order of the General Court of 8 October 2015 — Agrotikos Synetairismos Profitis Ilias v Council
   (Case T-731/14) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Common Foreign and Security Policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility))
   (2015/C 398/70)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Agrotikos Synetairismos Profitis Ilias (Skydra, Greece) (represented by: K. Chrysogonos, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert and I. Rodios, agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 1).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Agrotikos Synetairismos Profitis Ilias is to bear its own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union;

               3.

               There is no need to rule on the application for leave to intervene submitted by the European Commission;

               4.

               Agrotikos Synetairismos Profitis Ilias, the Council and the Commission are each to bear their own costs in relation to the application for leave to intervene.

      (1)  OJ C 16, 19.1.2015.


title: Case T- 397/02: Order of the Court of First Instance of  13 December 2005  — Arla Foods and Others v Commission (Regulation (EC) No 1829/2002 — Registration of a designation of origin  Feta  — Action for annulment — Capacity to bring proceedings — Inadmissibility)

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/39

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 13 December 2005 — Arla Foods and Others v Commission
   (Case T- 397/02) (1)

   (Regulation (EC) No 1829/2002 - Registration of a designation of origin ‘Feta’ - Action for annulment - Capacity to bring proceedings - Inadmissibility)
   (2006/C 60/76)
   Language of the case: Danish
   Parties

      Applicants: Arla Foods AMBA (Viby, Denmark), Løgismose A/S (Broby, Denmark), Nordex Food A/S (Dronninglund, Denmark), Sinai Landmejeri (Broby), Andelsmejeriet Sædager (Hobro, Denmark), Søvind Mejeri (Horsens, Denmark), Steensgaard Herregårdsmejeri (Millinge, Denmark), Mejeriet Grambogård I/S (Tommerup, Denmark) and Kirkeby Cheese Export (Svendborg, Denmark), (represented by G. Lett, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by H. Støvlbæk, J. Iglesias Buhigues and A.-M. Rouchaud-Joët, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicants: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by P. Ormond, Agent)

      Intervener: in support of the defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by V. Kontolaimos, I. Chalkias and M. Tassopoulou, Agents) and Syndesmos Ellinikon Viomichanion Galaktokomikon Proïonton (SEV-GAP) (represented by N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)
   Application for
   annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1829/2002 of 14 October 2002 amending the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 with regard to the name ‘Feta’ (OJ 2002 L 277 p. 10)
   Operative part of the Order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               The applicants shall bear their own costs and pay those of the Commission.

               3.

               The Hellenic Republic, the United Kingdom of Geat Britain and Northern Ireland and Syndesmos Ellinikon Viomichanion Galaktokomikon Proïonton (SEV-GAP) shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 70, 22.3.2003.


               30.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/22

         Removal from the register of Case C-476/03 (1)

   (2005/C 106/49)

      (Language of the case: German)

   By order of 20 January 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-476/03: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria.

      (1)  OJ C 21 of 24.01.2004.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 December 2001 in Case T-44/98: Emesa Sugar (Free Zone) NV v Commission of the European Communities (Association arrangements for overseas countries and territories — Sugar imports — Refusal of import licence — Action for annulment — Plea of illegality — Decision 97/803/EC — Irreversible nature of the experience acquired — Principle of proportionality — Legal certainty — Regulation (EC) No 2553/97)

text:
1.6.2002                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 131/15
                                                           COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        of 6 December 2001                                                           of 30 January 2002
in Case T-44/98: Emesa Sugar (Free Zone) NV v Com-
           mission of the European Communities (1)                          in Case T-35/99: Keller SpA and Keller Meccanica SpA v
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities (1)
(Association arrangements for overseas countries and terri-
tories — Sugar imports — Refusal of import licence —                        (State aid — Undertakings active in the field of producing
Action for annulment — Plea of illegality — Decision 97/                    railway rolling stock — Undertakings in special adminis-
803/EC — Irreversible nature of the experience acquired —                   tration — Aid for the regions of Sicily and Sardinia —
Principle of proportionality — Legal certainty — Regulation                 Subsidised loans — Pre-existing or new aid — Scope of the
                          (EC) No 2553/97)                                  decisions approving the schemes in question — Aid for
                                                                            the rescue or restructuring of undertakings in difficulties
                                                                            Commission guidelines — Article 92 of the EC Treaty (now
                           (2002/C 131/27)                                           Article 87 EC) — Obligation to state reasons)
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                                (2002/C 131/28)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
In Case T-44/98: Emesa Sugar (Free Zone) NV, established in
Oranjestad (Aruba), represented by G. van der Wal, lawyer,
with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Com-
mission of the European Communities (Agents: P.J. Kuijper
and T. van Rijn), supported by Council of the European Union                In Case T-35/99 Keller SpA, established at Palermo (Italy)
(Agents: J. Huber and G. Houttuin), Kingdom of Spain (Agents:               and Keller Meccanica SpA, established at Villacidro (Italy),
M. López-Monis Gallego and R. Silva de Lapuerta), French                   represented by D. Corapi, V. Cappucelli and M. Merola,
Republic (Agent: K. Rispal-Bellanger), and United Kingdom of                lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, supported
Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: R. Magrill) —                    by Italian Republic (Agents: V. Leanza and O. Fiumara), against
application for annulment of the Commission’s decision of                   Commission of the European Communities (Agents: initially
23 December 1997 (VI/51329), addressed to the Hoofdpro-                     G. Rozet and A. Aresu, subsequently G. Rozet and V. Di Bucci):
ductschap voor Akkerbouwproducten, rejecting an application                 — application for annulment of Commission decision 1999/
for an import licence for 3 010 tonnes of sugar, submitted                  195/EC of 1 July 1998 on aid granted and to be granted by
pursuant to Commission Regulation No 2553/97 of                             Italy to Keller SpA and Keller Meccanica SpA (OJ 1999 L 63,
17 December 1997 on rules for issuing import licences for                   p. 55) — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber,
certain products covered by CN codes 1701, 1702, 1703 and                   Extended Composition), composed of: A.W.H. Meij, President,
1704 and qualifying as ACP/OCT originating products (OJ                     and K. Lenaerts, M. Jaeger, J. Pirrung and M. Vilaras, Judges;
1997 L 349, p. 26), — the Court of First Instance (Third                    H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 January 2002
Chamber), composed of J. Azizi, President, K. Lenaerts and                  in which it:
M. Jaeger, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 6 December 2001, in which it:
                                                                            1.    Dismisses the application.
(1) Dismisses the action;
                                                                            2.    Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and, jointly and
(2) Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and in addition to                 severally, to pay the Commission’s costs.
      pay the costs incurred by the Commission, including those
      relating to the proceedings for interim relief;
                                                                            3.    Orders the intervener to bear its own costs.
(3) Orders the interveners to bear their own costs.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 121 of 1.5. 1999.
(1) OJ C 151 of 16.5.1998.


21.4.2001              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 118/23
        Removal from the register of Case C-367/99 (1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-463/99 (1)
                        (2001/C 118/40)                                                      (2001/C 118/43)
By order of 13 September 2000 the President of the Court of           By order of 26 September 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-367/99: [reference for a preliminary      from the register of Case C-463/99: Commission of the
ruling from Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria)]: Hugo BOSS            European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
AG v Coalle FA-93.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.
( 1) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-467/99 (1)
        Removal from the register of Case C-246/97 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/44)
                        (2001/C 118/41)
                                                                      By order of 26 September 2000 the President of the Court of
By order of 19 September 2000 the President of the Court of           Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           from the register of Case C-467/99: Commission of the
from the register of Case C-246/97: Portuguese Republic v             European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.
(1) OJ C 271 of 6.9.1997.
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-47/00 (1)
        Removal from the register of Case    C-330/97 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/45)
                        (2001/C 118/42)
                                                                      By order of 26 September 2000 the President of the Court of
By order of 19 September 2000 the President of the Court of           Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           from the register of Case C-47/00: (reference for a preliminary
from the register of Case C-330/97: Portuguese Republic v             ruling from the Bundessozialgericht): Hasan Gevin v Bundesan-
Commission of the European Communities.                               stalt für Arbeit — Kindergeldkasse.
(1) OJ C 357 of 22.11.1997.                                           (1) OJ C 122 of 29.4.2000.


title: Case C-418/00: Action brought on 13 November 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
C 4/2                  EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                           6.1.2001
Action brought on 20 October 2000 by the Commission                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-                  Bari, Sezione Distaccata di Rutigliano, by order of that
                          lic of Germany                                court of 19 September 2000 in the cases of Giovanni
                                                                        Colapietro against Ispettorato Generale Repressione Frodi
                                                                        and Giovanni Colapietro against Ministero per le Politiche
                         (Case C-389/00)                                                               Agricole
                           (2001/C 4/02)
                                                                                (Cases C-390/00 and C-391/00)
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-                                        (2001/C 4/03)
ties on 20 October 2000 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Josef Christian Schieferer, of its
Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg at             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of the same service,            European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Bari,
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                               Sezione Distaccata di Rutigliano (Bari District Court, Rutigliano
                                                                        Division) of 19 September 2000, received at the Court Registry
                                                                        on 24 October 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the cases of
The Commission claims that the Court should:                            Giovanni Colapietro against Ispettorato Generale Repressione
                                                                        Frodi and Giovanni Colapietro against Ministero per le Poli-
                                                                        tiche Agricole on the following questions:
1.    Declare that, by adopting the AbfalIverbringungsgesetz
      (Law on the Transfer of Waste) of 30 September 1994,
      establishing a solidarity fund for the return of waste, the       (1) Is Law No 460 of 1987, Article 4 of which provides for
      Federal Republic of Germany has infringed its obligations               penalties in respect of provisions of Community law laid
      under Articles 23 and 25 EC;                                            down by regulations which have now been repealed, (1)
                                                                              applicable for the purposes of enforcing rules laid down
                                                                              in new regulations?
2.    Order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
                                                                        (2) Is the administrative penalty at issue disproportionate in
                                                                              effect to the offence, contrary to the principle of fair
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               punishment?
The Commission considers that the obligation on exporters of            (1) With reference, in particular, to Council Regulation No 822/87 of
waste under the German Abfallverbringungsgesetz to pay                      16 March 1987 (OJ L 84 of 27.3.1987, p. 1).
membership contributions to the solidarity fund is incompat-
ible with Community law in so far as the solidarity fund
assumes the costs of reimporting waste (including its disposal
and recycling) in the cases referred to in Articles 25 and 26 of
Council Regulation 259/93, (1) which are imposed on the
exporting Member State in the event of it being impracticable
to charge the notifier (Article 33(2) of Regulation 259/93). To
that extent, the contribution constitutes a burden imposed
unilaterally on domestic goods on account of their crossing
the frontier. Contrary to the defendant’s view, the relevant part
of the contribution cannot be regarded as appropriate payment           Action brought on 13 November 2000 by the Com-
for a service actually and individually provided by the adminis-        mission of the European Communities against the French
tration to an economic operator. The financing of the second-                                         Republic
ary State liability expressly provided for in Article 33(2) of
Regulation No 259/93 cannot be described as a ‘particular or
individual advantage’.                                                                            (Case C-418/00)
                                                                                (2001/C 4/04)
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the
    supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and
    out of the European Community (OJ 1993 L 30, p. 1), amended         An action against the French Republic was brought before the
    by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2408/98 of 6 November              Court of Justice on 13 November 2000 by the Commission of
    1998 (OJ 1998 L 298, p. 19).                                        the European Communities, represented by T. Van Rijn, Legal
                                                                        Adviser, and Bernard Mongin, of its Legal Service, acting as
                                                                        Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
                                                                        of C. Gómez de la Cruz, also of its Legal Service, Wagner
                                                                        Centre, Kirchberg.
 ---pagebreak--- 6.1.2001                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 4/3
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                    Action brought on 13 November 2000 by the Com-
the Court of Justice should:                                              mission of the European Communities against the French
                                                                                Republic
1.    Declare that
      —     by failing to determine the appropriate detailed rules                                (Case C-419/00)
            for the utilization of the quotas allocated to them
            for the fishing years 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994;
                                                                                (2001/C 4/05)
      —     by failing to ensure compliance with the Community
            rules on the conservation of species through suf-
            ficient monitoring of fishing activities, appropriate
            inspection of the fishing fleet and of catches landed
                                                                          An action against the French Republic was brought before the
            and recordal of catches;
                                                                          Court of Justice on 13 November 2000 by the Commission of
                                                                          the European Communities, represented by T. Van Rijn, Legal
      —     by not provisionally prohibiting fishing by vessels           Adviser, and B. Mongin, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents,
            flying the French flag or registered in France when           with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
            the catches taken had been deemed to have exhaus-             C. Gómez de la Cruz, also of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
            ted the corresponding quota and by prohibiting                Kirchberg.
            fishing on a contingent basis even though the quota
            had been exceeded by far, in the 1991, 1992,
            1993 and 1994 fishing years;
                                                                          The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                          the Court of Justice should:
      —     by failing to take criminal or administrative proceed-
            ings against any skipper or other persons responsible
            for fishing after the prohibition thereof, as regards
            the 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994 fishing years;                  1.   Declare that
      the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations                 —    by failing to determine the appropriate detailed rules
      under Article 5(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 170/83, (1)                         for the utilization of the quotas allocated to them
      Article 1 and 11(1) and (2) of Regulation (EEC)                               for the fishing years 1995 and 1996;
      No 2241/87, (2) Articles 2, 21(1) and (2) and 31 of
      Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 (3) and Article 9(2) of
      Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 (4).
                                                                               —    by failing to ensure compliance with the Community
                                                                                rules on the conservation of species through suf-
2.    Order the French Republic to pay the costs.                                   ficient monitoring of fishing activities, appropriate
                                                                                inspection of the fishing fleet and of catches landed
                                                                                and recordal of catches;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                               —    by not provisionally prohibiting fishing by vessels
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those                            flying the French flag or registered in France when
relied upon in Case C-333/99 (5) concerning the same infringe-                      the catches taken had been deemed to have exhaus-
ments in 1988 and 1990.                                                             ted the corresponding quota and by prohibiting
                                                                                fishing on a contingent basis even though the quota
                                                                                had been exceeded by far, in the 1995 and 1996
                                                                                fishing years;
(1) OJ L 24 of 27.01.1983, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 207 of 29.07.1987, p. 1.
(3) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993                     —    by failing to take criminal or administrative proceed-
    establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries                ings against any skipper or other persons responsible
    policy (OJ 1993 L 261, p. 1).                                                   for fishing after the prohibition thereof, as regards
(4) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 of 20 December 1992                         the 1995 and 1996 fishing years;
    establishing a Community system for fisheries and aquaculture
    (OJ 1992 L 389, p, 1).
 5
( ) OJ 1999 C 333, p. 17.                                                      the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                               under Article 9(2) of Regulation TEC) No 3760/92 (1) and
                                                                               Articles 2, 21 and 31 of Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 (2),
                                                                               in conjunction with Regulations (EEC) Nos 3362/94 (3)
                                                                               and 3074/95 (4);


title: Case C-335/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 3 July 2015 — Maria Cristina Elisabetta Ornano v Ministero della Giustizia, Direzione Generale dei Magistrati del Ministero

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/41

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 3 July 2015 — Maria Cristina Elisabetta Ornano v Ministero della Giustizia, Direzione Generale dei Magistrati del Ministero
   (Case C-335/15)
   (2015/C 294/53)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Maria Cristina Elisabetta Ornano

      Defendant: Ministero della Giustizia, Direzione Generale dei Magistrati del Ministero

      Question referred

               1.

               Do Article 11, first paragraph, subparagraphs 1, 2(b) and (3), and the last and penultimate recitals in the preamble to Council Directive 92/85/EEC (1) of 19 October 1992 and Article 157(1), (2) and (4) TFEU (formerly Article 141(1), (2) and (4) EC), Article 158 TFEU (formerly Article 142 EC), where it requires that ‘Member States shall endeavour to maintain the existing equivalence between paid holiday schemes’, Articles 2(2)(c) and 14(1)(c) of Directive 2006/54/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006, read together, and Article 15 and recitals 23 and 24 in the preamble to that directive, and, finally, Article 23 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1), preclude national legislation which, by virtue of Article 3(1) of Law No 27 of 19 February 1981, in the version prior to the amendment made by Article 1(325) of Law No 311 of 30 December 2004, does not allow payment of the allowance provided for therein for periods of compulsory maternity leave prior to 1 January 2005?

      (1)  Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (OJ 1992 L 348, pp. 1-7).

      (2)  Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast) (OJ 2006 L 204, pp. 23-36).


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 25 November 1998 in Case C-214/96: Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Spain (Failure to fulfil obligations - Failure to transpose Directive 76/464/EEC)

text:
C 20/6                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    23.1.1999
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                    of 24 November 1998                                                      (Sixth Chamber)
in Case C-274/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                 of 25 November 1998
the Pretura Circondariale di Bolzano, Sezione Distaccata
di Silandro): Criminal proceedings against Horst Otto                       in Case C-214/96: Commission of the European
                  Bickel and Ulrich Franz (1)                                     Communities v. Kingdom of Spain (1)
(Freedom of movement for persons Ð Equal treatment Ð                 (Failure to fulfil obligations Ð Failure to transpose
     Language rules applicable to criminal proceedings)                                  Directive 76/464/EEC)
                        (1999/C 20/08)                                                        (1999/C 20/09)
                (Language of the case: Italian)                                      (Language of the case: Spanish)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-274/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty by the Pretura Circondariale di Bolzano,            In Case C-214/96: Commission of the European
Sezione Distaccata di Silandro (Italy), for a preliminary            Communities (Agents: Richard Wainwright and Fernando
ruling in the criminal proceedings before that court                 Castillo de la Torre) v. Kingdom of Spain (Agent: Paloma
against Horst Otto Bickel and Ulrich Franz Ð on the                  Plaza Garcia) Ð application for a declaration that, by
interpretation of Articles 6, 8(a) and 59 of the EC Treaty           failing to adopt and communicate the programmes for
Ð the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias,                  reducing pollution of waters by the substances set out in
President, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and         List II, as provided for in Article 7(1) of Council Directive
P. Jann, Presidents of Chambers, G. F. Mancini, J. C.                76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by
Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, H.                    certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic
Ragnemalm (Rapporteur), L. Sevón, M. Wathelet and R.                 environment of the Community (OJ L 129, 18.5.1976,
Schintgen, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; H. von            p. 23), the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its
Holstein, Assistant Registrar, has given a judgment on               obligations under the EC Treaty and Article 7 of the
24 November 1998 in which it has ruled:                              directive Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
                                                                     P. J. G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch
                                                                     (Rapporteur), J. L. Murray, H. Ragnemalm and K. M.
                                                                     Ioannou, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate-General; R. Grass,
1. The right conferred by national rules to have criminal            Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 November 1998 in
     proceedings conducted in a language other than the              which it:
     principal language of the State concerned falls within
     the scope of the EC Treaty and must comply with
     Article 6 thereof.
                                                                     1. Declares that, by failing to establish programmes for
                                                                          reducing the pollution of surface waters and territorial
                                                                          sea waters by substances falling within List II of
2. Article 6 of the Treaty precludes national rules which,                Council Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on
     in respect of a particular language other than the                   pollution caused by certain dangerous substances
     principal language of the Member State concerned,                    discharged into the aquatic environment of the
     confer on citizens whose language is that particular                 Community, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil
     language and who are resident in a defined area the                  its obligations under Article 7 of that directive.
     right to require that criminal proceedings be
     conducted in that language, without conferring the
     same right on nationals of other Member States
     travelling or staying in that area, whose language is
     the same.                                                       2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 294, 5.10.1996.                                             (1) OJ C 247, 24.8.1996.


title: Case F-24/07: Action brought on 15 March 2007 — Lafleur-Tighe v Commission

text:
               26.5.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 117/36

         Action brought on 15 March 2007 — Lafleur-Tighe v Commission
   (Case F-24/07)
   (2007/C 117/56)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Virgine Lafleur-Tighe (Makati, Philippines) (represented by S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the Appointing Authority to classify the applicant in grade 13, step 1 at the date of his recruitment as a contract agent, entailed by the employment contract signed on 22 December 2005;

               —

               indicate to the Appointing Authority the effects of the annulment of the contested decision and, in particular, of the recognition of the applicant's professional experience from 16 November 1993, the date he obtained his bachelor's degree, and his reclassification in grade 14, with retroactive effect from 22 December 2005;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, in addition to relying on the pleas in law very similar to those which she raised in Case F-135/06 (1), claims, in particular, that there has been a breach of the principle of free movement in respect of degrees and professional qualifications.

      (1)  OJ C 236, 30.12.2006, p. 87.


title: Case T-352/14: Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — The Smiley Company v OHIM — The Swatch Group Management Services (HAPPY TIME) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark HAPPY TIME — Earlier international word mark HAPPY HOURS — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/51

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — The Smiley Company v OHIM — The Swatch Group Management Services (HAPPY TIME)
   (Case T-352/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark HAPPY TIME - Earlier international word mark HAPPY HOURS - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 302/66)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: The Smiley Company SPRL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: I.-M. Helbig, P. Hansmersmann and S. Rengshausen, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: The Swatch Group Management Services AG (Biel, Switzerland)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 February 2014 (Case R 1497/2013-1), relating to opposition proceedings between The Swatch Group Management Services AG and The Smiley Company SPRL.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders The Smiley Company SPRL to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 245, 28.7.2014.


title: Case T-518/15: Action brought on 2 September 2015 — France v Commission

text:
               26.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 354/50

         Action brought on 2 September 2015 — France v Commission
   (Case T-518/15)
   (2015/C 354/61)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: French Republic (represented by: G. De Bergues, D. Colas, R. Coesme and A. Daly, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul in part Commission Decision C(2015) 4076 final of 22 June 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in so far as it excludes from European Union financing the expenditure of the French Republic incurred under the Compensatory allowance for natural handicaps aid and under the cattle-farmers’ agro-environmental premium with regard to Axis 2 of Metropolitan France’s rural development programme for the financial years of 2011, 2012 and 2013 in the amount of the aid paid pursuant to requests made in the years in which it was promoted of 2011, 2012 and 2013;

               —

               in the alternative, annul in part the decision in so far as it includes the expenditure relating to sheep and goats that have not benefited from a request for animal aid in the basis of calculation of the lump-sum correction;

               —

               in the further alternative, annul in part the decision in so far as it applies a lump-sum correction plus 10 % on the basis that the failure for which the French authorities were criticised in counting the animals was recurrent;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Articles 4(1), 10(1) and 14(2) of Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 (1) and Article 11(1) of Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 (2) since the Commission found that the applicant had failed to comply with its obligations to check stocking rates on the basis that it had not counted the animals during on-the-spot checks and on the basis that the animals were not made ‘the subject of a plausible calculation’ during on-the-spot checks.

               2.

               Second plea in law, in the alternative, alleging that, in the contested decision, the Commission unlawfully included the expenditure relating to sheep and goats that have not benefited from a request for animal aid in the basis of calculation of the lump-sum correction.

               3.

               Third plea in law, in the further alternative, alleging failure to take full account of the rules set out in Annex 2 Annex 2 to Document VI/5330/97 (3) and Communication AGRI/60637/2006 (4) since the Commission applied a lump-sum correction plus 10 % on the basis that the failure for which the French authorities were criticised in counting the animals was recurrent.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 of 27 January 2011 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, as regards the implementation of control procedures as well as cross-compliance in respect of rural development support measures (OJ 2011 L 25, p. 8).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 of 21 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the accreditation of paying agencies and other bodies and the clearance of the accounts of the EAGF and of the EAFRD (OJ 2006 L 171, p. 90).

      (3)  Commission Document No VI/5330/97 of 23 December 1997 on guidelines for the calculation of financial consequences when preparing the decision regarding the clearance of the accounts of EAGGF Guarantee.

      (4)  Commission Communication No AGRI/60637/2006 final on the calculation of the Commission of financial consequences when clearing EAGGF accounts, repeated shortcomings in safeguards.


title: Case C-390/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sección Tercera de la Sala Tercera del Tribunal Supremo by order of that court of 22 September 1999 in the case of Canal Satélite Digital S.L. and Administración General del Estado, the other party to the proceedings being DTS Distribuidora de Televisión Digital S.A.

text:
8.1.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 6/15
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sección                    Action brought on 13 October 1999 by the Commission
Tercera de la Sala Tercera del Tribunal Supremo by order                of the European Communities against the Hellenic Repub-
of that court of 22 September 1999 in the case of                                                      lic
Canal Satélite Digital S.L. and Administración General del
Estado, the other party to the proceedings being DTS
           Distribuidora de Televisión Digital S.A.                                            (Case C-396/99)
                         (Case C-390/99)
                                                                                (2000/C 6/28)
                           (2000/C 6/27)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
European Communities by order of 22 September 1999 from                 the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
the Sección Tercera de la Sala Tercera del Tribunal Supremo            13 October 1999 by the Commission of the European Com-
(Third Section of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court),              munities, represented by Dimitris Triantafillou and Barry
which was received at the Court Registry on 12 October 1999,            Doherty, of its Legal Service, with an address for service in
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Canal Satéllite Digital         Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
S.L. and Administración General del Estado, the other party to         Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
the proceedings being DTS Distribuidora de Televisión Digital
S.A. on the following questions:
                                                                        The Commission claims that the Court should:
1. Does Article 30 of the EC Treaty, in conjunction with the
    provisions of Articles 1 to 5 of Directive 95/47/EC of the
    European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October                — declare that, by not adopting within the time-limit laid
    1995 on the use of standards for the transmission of                    down all the measures necessary in order to comply with
    television signals (1), preclude national rules which impose            Article 2(1) of Directive 96/2/EC (1) with regard to mobile
    on operators of conditional-access services, as a condition             and personal communications, in conjunction with the
    of their being permitted to market apparatus, equipment,                second and third paragraphs of Article 3a of Directive
    decoders or systems for the digital transmission and                    90/388/EEC on competition in the markets for telecom-
    reception of television signals by satellite — including                munications services, as amended by Directive 96/2/EC,
    those lawfully manufactured or marketed in other Member                 the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
    States — the following cumulative requirements:                         under the Treaty and those directives;
    — the obligation to register details of themselves and of
         the aforementioned apparatus, equipment, decoders              — order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
         and systems in a compulsory official register, such
         registration being conditional not only on a solemn
         declaration by the operator concerned that he has
         complied with the technical specifications, but also on        Pleas in law and main arguments
         a prior technical report from the national authorities
         on compliance with the technical and other require-
         ments laid down in the national legislation;                   The Member States are required by the binding character of
                                                                        the third paragraph of Article 249 and Article 10 EC (ex third
    — the obligation, following completion of the registration          paragraph of Article 189 and Article 5 of the EC Treaty) to
         procedure referred to above, to obtain the appropriate         adopt the measures needed to transpose directives into national
         administrative ‘certification’ attesting to compliance         law before the expiry of the period laid down for that purpose
         with the aforementioned technical and other require-           and to communicate those measures immediately to the
         ments laid down in the national legislation?                   Commission.
2. Does Article 59 of the EC Treaty, in conjunction with
    Articles 1 to 5 of Directive 95/47/EC, preclude national
    legislation which imposes the administrative requirements           Up until now the Hellenic Republic has not adopted the
    set out above on operators of conditional-access services?          measures necessary in order to implement fully Article 2(1) of
                                                                        Directive 96/2/EC and the second and third paragraphs of
3. Is a national legislative provision which prescribes com-            Article 3a of Directive 90/388/EEC, as amended by Directive
    pliance with such requirements to be regarded as a                  96/2/EC, which had to be implemented no later than 1 January
    ‘technical regulation’ for the purposes of the duty to              1998; it has thereby failed to fulfil its obligations under the
    notify the Commission referred to in Council Directive              Treaty and those directives.
    83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying down a procedure
    for the provision of information in the field of technical
    standards and regulations? (2)
                                                                        (1) OJ L 20, 26.1.1996, p. 59.
(1) OJ L 281 of 23.11.1995, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 109 of 26.4.1993, p. 8.


C 264/40              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                     1.11.2003
       Removal from the register of Case T-288/99 (1)                           Removal from the register of Case T-111/03 (1)
                         (2003/C 264/70)
                                                                                (2003/C 264/72)
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
By order of 2 September 2003 the President of the Second
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case                By order of 16 July 2003 the President of the Second Chamber
T-288/99: Evers V.O.F. v Commission of the European Com-                 of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
munities.                                                                ordered the removal from the register of Case T-111/03:
                                                                         Michel Nolin v Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 124 of 24.5.2003.
       Removal from the register of Case T-318/99 (1)
                         (2003/C 264/71)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-249/03 R
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                                (2003/C 264/73)
By order of 2 September 2003 the President of the Second
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                                     (Language of the case: French)
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
T-318/99: Avia Nederland Coöperatie U.A. v Commission of
the European Communities.
                                                                         By order of 5 August 2003 the President of the Court of First
(1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.
                                                                         Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                         from the register of Case T-249/03 R: Y v Commission of the
                                                                         European Communities.


title: Case C-141/07: Action brought on 9 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               26.5.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 117/15

         Action brought on 9 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-141/07)
   (2007/C 117/24)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Schima)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by providing in Paragraph 14(5) and 14(6) of the Apothekengesetz (Law on Pharmacies) that a contract to supply medicinal products is subject to cumulative requirements which make it impossible in practice for pharmacies in other Member States to supply a hospital on a regular basis with medicinal products, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC and Article 30 EC;

               —

               order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Under Article 28 EC, all quantitative restrictions on imports and all measures having equivalent effect shall be prohibited between Member States. All trading rules of the Member States which are capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra-Community trade are to be considered to be measures having an equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions. The fact that, as Community law currently stands, the rules relating to the distribution of medicinal products have been harmonised only in certain limited fields does not release a Member State from its obligation to comply with the provisions concerning the free movement of goods.
   According to Paragraph 14 of the German Apothekengesetz (Law on Pharmacies), German hospitals may be supplied with medicinal products by an external pharmacy instead of setting up their own pharmacy inside the hospital. According to this provision, contracts for the supply of medicinal products must however satisfy cumulative requirements which make it impossible in practice for pharmacies in other Member States to supply them to a hospital on a regular basis, given that certain duties stipulated under the contract are capable of being fulfilled only by pharmacies established in the vicinity of the hospital which is to be supplied.
   According to the case-law of the Court, national provisions restricting or prohibiting certain selling arrangements do not fall under Article 28 EC provided that two requirements are met: first, the provisions concerned must apply to all affected traders operating within the national territory and, second, they should affect the marketing of domestic products and those from other Member States in the same manner, in law and in fact. In this case only the first condition is however met, whereas domestic and foreign products are not affected in the same manner, in law and in fact, by the legislative requirement that all duties under the contract be met by a single supplier. This rule impedes access to the market more for foreign goods than for domestic products. In that regard it is immaterial according to the case-law of the Court that domestic pharmacies which are not situated in the vicinity of the hospital are also confronted by the same problems. A national provision which does not favour all domestic products and which also adversely affects domestic and not only foreign products is still capable of being regarded as a restriction on trade between Member States.
   Restrictions on intra-Community trade may be justified on overriding grounds of public interest, in particular relating to public security or public health requirements. The national rules in question should be suitable, necessary and proportionate. There is no requirement on grounds of public health for the bundling mandated by national legislation of the contractual duties referred to. It should on the contrary be possible for a pharmacy situated at some greater distance from the hospital which is to be supplied and also in another Member State to supply it with medicinal products on a regular basis.


title: Case T-365/13: Action brought on 12 July 2013 — Republic of Lithuania v European Commission

text:
               28.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 284/3

         Action brought on 12 July 2013 — Republic of Lithuania v European Commission

   (Case T-365/13)
   2013/C 284/03
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas and R. Krasuckaitė)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               1.

               declare European Commission Decision No C(2013) 2436 final of 2 May 2013 to be invalid in so far as it applies to the Republic of Lithuania and in so far as it refuses to finance specific EAFRD expenditure incurred by the Republic of Lithuania;

               2.

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.
   The applicant’s first plea in law alleges that, in adopting the contested decision, the Commission breached Articles 10 and 15 of Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006 (1) and Article 48 of Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 (2) in that, in requiring that a superfluous check (on-the-spot verifications) be carried out in the event of the appropriateness of a criterion (livestock density) for the support measure relating to natural handicaps, it failed to have regard for the discretion of Member States, confirmed in those provisions, to choose for themselves the criteria and methods of conducting checks and failed to take account of the arguments of the Lithuanian authorities with regard to the effectiveness and efficacy of the checking method chosen.
   The applicant’s second plea in law alleges that the Commission breached Article 31(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 (3) and the principle of proportionality inasmuch as, not proving that there was any significant risk to the Fund, it unjustifiably applied a 5 % financial correction on the ground of an ostensibly inappropriate check under the livestock density criterion. The Commission ought, pursuant to the requirements laid down in Article 31(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, to have made any financial corrections proportionate to the infringements established and to the risk posed to the European Union budget. The corrections laid down in the contested decision go beyond what is appropriate and necessary for the purpose of protecting the budgetary interests of the European Union.
   The applicant’s third plea in law is to the effect that the Commission, proceeding on the basis of a misinterpretation of Article 14(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006 and of Article 48(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006, and in breach of Article 29 of Regulation (EC) No 796/2004, (4) unjustifiably imposed a 2 % financial correction on the ground that, during an on-the-spot visit designed to monitor all obligations, 100 % of all parcels of land were not checked.
   The applicant’s fourth plea in law alleges that, in adopting the contested decision, the Commission breached Article 10(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006, as, in proposing that an ineffective check on the use of fertilisers (administrative check) be applied, the Commission failed to have regard for the discretion of Member States, confirmed in that provision, to choose for themselves the criteria and methods of conducting checks and failed to take account of the arguments of the Lithuanian authorities concerning the effectiveness and efficacy of the checking method chosen (the visual method).
   The applicant’s fifth plea in law is to the effect that the Commission breached Article 31(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 and the principle of proportionality inasmuch as, not proving that there was any significant risk to the Fund, it unjustifiably applied a 5 % financial correction on the ground of an ostensibly unsuitable check in respect of the fertiliser use criterion. The Commission ought, pursuant to the requirements laid down in Article 31(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, to have made any financial correction proportionate to the infringements established and to the risk posed to the European Union budget. The corrections laid down in the contested decision go beyond what is appropriate and necessary for the purpose of protecting the budgetary interests of the European Union.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006 of 7 December 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, as regards the implementation of control procedures as well as cross-compliance in respect of rural development support measures (OJ 2006 L 368, p. 74).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 of 15 December 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2006 L 368, p. 15).

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2005 L 209, p. 1).

      (4)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers (OJ 2004 L 141, p. 18).


title: Case T-296/12: Judgment of the General Court of 12 June 2015 — Health Food Manufacturers’ Association and Others v Commission (Consumer protection — Regulation (EU) No 432/2012 — Health claims made on foods — Actions for annulment — Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures — Whether directly concerned — Admissibility — Infringement of Articles 13 and 28 of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 — Principle of good administration — Non-discrimination — Incorrect assessment criteria — Regulation No 1924/2006 — Plea of illegality — Right to be heard — Legal certainty — Unreasonable transition period — List of claims on hold)

text:
               27.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/14

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 June 2015 — Health Food Manufacturers’ Association and Others v Commission
   (Case T-296/12) (1)

   ((Consumer protection - Regulation (EU) No 432/2012 - Health claims made on foods - Actions for annulment - Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures - Whether directly concerned - Admissibility - Infringement of Articles 13 and 28 of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 - Principle of good administration - Non-discrimination - Incorrect assessment criteria - Regulation No 1924/2006 - Plea of illegality - Right to be heard - Legal certainty - Unreasonable transition period - List of claims on hold))
   (2015/C 245/17)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: The Health Food Manufacturers’ Association (East Molesey, United Kingdom); Quest Vitamins Ltd (Birmingham, United Kingdom); Natures Aid Ltd (Kirkham, United Kingdom); Natuur-& gezondheidsProducten Nederland (Ermelo, Netherlands); and New Care Supplements BV (Oisterwijk, Netherlands) (represented by: B. Kelly and G. Castle, Solicitors, and P. Bogaert, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and S. Grünheid, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicants: FederSalus (Rome, Italy); Medestea biotech SpA (Turin, Italy); and Naturando Srl (Osio Sotto, Italy) (represented by: E. Valenti and D. Letizia, lawyers)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented: initially by D. Colas and S. Menez, and subsequently by D. Colas and S. Ghiandoni, acting as Agents); European Parliament (represented by: J. Rodrigues and L. Visaggio, acting as Agents); Council of the European Union (represented by: I. Šulce and M. Moore, acting as Agents); and Bureau européen des unions de consommateurs (BEUC) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) No 432/2012 of 16 May 2012 establishing a list of permitted health claims made on foods, other than those referring to the reduction of disease risk and to children’s development and health (OJ 2012 L 136, p. 1), and the alleged decision of the Commission adopting a list of ‘on-hold’ health claims.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders The Health Food Manufacturers’ Association, Quest Vitamins Ltd, Natures Aid Ltd, Natuur-& gezondheidsProducten Nederland and New Care Supplements BV to bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Commission;

               3)

               Orders the French Republic, the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union, the Bureau européen des unions de consommateurs (BEUC), FederSalus, Medestea biotech SpA and Naturando Srl to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 250, 18.8.2012.


title: Case T-751/15: Action brought on 21 December 2015 — Contact Software v Commission

text:
               22.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 68/39

         Action brought on 21 December 2015 — Contact Software v Commission
   (Case T-751/15)
   (2016/C 068/50)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Contact Software GmbH (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: J.-M. Schultze, S. Pautke and C. Ehlenz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Decision C(2015) 7006 final in Case AT.39846 — CONTACT/Dassault & PTC of 9 October 2015;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present action, the applicant requests the annulment of Decision C(2015) 7006 final in Case AT.39846 — CONTACT/Dassault & PTC of 9 October 2015 with which the applicant’s complaint of 18 November 2010 was rejected on the basis of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004. (1)

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

               1.

               First plea in law: erroneous definition of the relevant markets
               The applicant submits that the defendant erred in law and made manifest errors of assessment in the interpretation and application of Article 102 TFEU by not investigating the applicant’s references and arguments relating to a narrower definition of the relevant markets, which suggest that there are, first, separate markets for supplier-specific ‘Computer Aided Design’ (‘CAD’) software or at least for high end CAD software for car manufacturers and car suppliers and, secondly, a market for interface information about the CAD software of every supplier.

               2.

               Second plea in law: infringement of Article 102 TFEU
               With this plea, the applicant submits that the defendant made a manifest error in its assessment of the dominant market position of the undertakings concerned, which error is above all based on the erroneous market definition which has already been referred to.

               3.

               Third plea in law: infringement of the obligation to state reasons
               In the context of the third plea, the applicant submits that the rejection of its complaint was not sufficiently reasoned.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law: incorrect exercise of discretion
               With the fourth plea the applicant submits that the defendant’s conclusion that, having regard to the Community interest, there were no sufficient reasons to further investigate a possible infringement of Article 102 TFEU is manifestly incorrect.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty (OJ 2004 L 123, p. 18).


title: Action brought on 5 June 1996 by Assicurazioni Generali SpA and Unicredito SpA against Commission of the European Communities (Case T-87/96)

text:
23 . 11 . 96            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 354/27
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               by Miguel Ferrão Castelo Branco, of the Lisbon Bar, with an
                        of 4 October 1996                               address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                        Francois Brouxel , 6 Rue Zithe, against Commission of the
in Case T-5 /96 : Sveriges Betodlares Centralförening and               European Communities ( Agents : Maria Teresa Figueira and
Sven Ake Henrikson v. Commission of the European                        Knut Simonsson ) — application for suspension of the
                          Communities (')
                                                                        operation of the Commission Decision of 12 December
(Common agricultural policy — Sugar beet — Regulation                   1995 ordering reimbursement of Esc 4 267 218 paid as
(EC) No 1 734/95 — Specific agricultural conversion rate —              assistance from the European Social Fund for a vocational
No conversion rate for Sweden — Action for annulment —                  training programme — the President of the Court of First
                          Inadmissibility)                              Instance has made an order on 8 October 1996 , the
                           ( 96/C 354/54 )                              operative part of which is as follows :
                  (Language of the case: English)                       1 . The application for interim measures is dismissed.
In Case T-5/96 : Sveriges Betodlares Centralförening, having
its registered office in Malmö ( Sweden ), and Sven Ake                 2.   The costs are reserved.
Henrikson, residing in Lund ( Sweden ), represented by
Otfried        Lieberknecht and Wolfgang Kirchhoff,
Rechtsanwälte, Düsseldorf, and Michael Schütte,
Rechtsanwalt, Berlin, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alex Bonn, 62 Avenue
Guillaume, against Commission of the European
Communities ( Agents : Eugenio de March and James
Macdonald Flett ) — application for the annulment of the
Commission decision contained in the letter of 27 October               Action brought on 5 June 1996 by Assicurazioni Generali
 1995 ( reference D(95 ) VI/ 1242/95 ) refusing to fix for              SpA and Unicredito SpA against Commission of the
Sweden the specific agricultural conversion rate for                                        European Communities
minimum sugar beet prices for the period from 1 January                                         ( Case T-87/96 )
 1995 to 30 June 1995 — the Court of First Instance ( First
                                                                                ( 96/C 354/56 )
Chamber ), composed of: A. Saggio, President, V. Tiili and
R. M. Moura Ramos , Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made
an order on 4 October 1996 , the operative part of which is
as follows :
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
 1 . The application is dismissed as inadmissible.                      An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities was brought before the Court of First
2 . The applicants shall bear their own costs and shall also            Instance of the European Communities on 5 June 1996 by
      bear, jointly and severally, those incurred by the                Assicurazioni Generali SpA, of Trieste ( Italy ), and
      Commission .                                                      Unicredito SpA, of Treviso ( Italy ), represented by Aurelio
                                                                        Pappalardo, of the Trapani Bar, and ClaudioTesauro, of the
 (') OJ No C 133 , 4 . 5 . 1996 .                                       Naples Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                        the Chambers of Alain Lorang, 51 Rue Albert Premier.
                                                                        The applicants claim that the Court should :
     ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT                                — annul the Commission decision of 25 March 1996 in
                        of 8 October 1996                                    Case No IV/M.711 Generali/Unicredito;
 in Case T-84/96 R: Cipeke — Comercio e Industria de
 Papel , Ld .a, v. Commission of the European                           — order the Commission to pay the costs .
                             Communities
 (Socialpolicy — European Social Fund — Decision ordering                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
partial reimbursement ofassistance for a vocational training
 programme — Interim measures — Request for suspension
           of operation — Urgency — No urgency)                          The applicants, which are insurance companies, gave notice,
                            ( 96/C 354/55 )                              under Council Regulation No 4064/89 , of the creation of a
                                                                         joint venture , called Casse e Generali Vita SpA ( CG Vita ),
                                                                         designed to operate in the life assurance market, on the
                 (Language of the case: Portuguese)                      assumption that it amounted to a concentration; they now
                                                                         contest the Commission 's refusal to treat the operation
 In Case T-84/96 R: Cipeke — Comercio e Industria de                     notified to it as falling within the scope of the
 Papel , Ld . a, whose registered office is in Lisbon, represented       abovementioned regulation .
 ---pagebreak--- No C 354/28           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   23 . 11 . 96
According to the applicants, the contested decision is based         Action brought on 10 September 1996 by MD Foods Amba
on the view that CG Vita is not functionally independent             and Others against Commission of the European
because :                                                                                Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-l 39/96 )
— the operation forms part of wider cooperation between                                         ( 96/C 354/57 )
     the founding undertakings;
— the functions of providing assistance on technical                                 (Language of the case: Danish)
     matters , management and distribution which those
     undertakings are to continue to carry out for the joint
     venture , in addition to their initial contributions , are
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
     wide-ranging and of particular financial significance ;         Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                     Instance of the European Communities on 10 September
— the features of CG Vita 's insurance products are not              1996 by MD Foods and by Danske Mejeriers
     such as to distinguish them appreciably from those at           Fsellesorganisation on behalf of Klovermaelk Amba,
     present marketed by Generali .                                  Logismose Produktion A/S, Mejeriselkabet Vesthimmer
                                                                     land , Nordex Food A/S, Sinai Landmejeri and Stedager
                                                                     Andelsmejeri , represented by Georg Lett, Advokat, assisted
In the applicants ' view, however, the fact that the setting up      by N. Scandamis , Advokat, with an address for service in
of CG Vita forms part of wider cooperation between                   Luxembourg at the Chambers of Roland Assa , 1 Rue
Generali and Unicredito is irrelevant for two reasons : first,
                                                                     J. P. Brasseur .
the cooperation of other kinds remains , at the present stage,
purely hypothetical and , in the event of its taking place , such
cooperation would be the subject of appropriate agreements
                                                                     The applicants claim that the Court should :
which the parties would, if necessary, submit for appraisal
by the competent anti-trust authorities; secondly, the
envisaged forms of cooperation have not the slightest link           — declare invalid and annul Commission Regulation ( EC )
with CG Vita but relate to cases of preferential relationships           No 1107/96 of 12 June 1996 (') on the registration of
which Generali and Unicredito would enter into with each                 geographical indications and designations of origin
other in relation to their main areas of business .                      under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of Council
                                                                         Regulation ( EEC ) No 2081 /92 in so far as concerns the
                                                                         registration of feta as a protected designation of
Furthermore , CG Vita fully meets the requirement of                     origin ;
functional independence in so far as it has sufficient
financial resources, will use a sales network based on
facilities which its bank shareholders intend to provide for         — order the Commission to pay the costs .
it, and will initially have a staff of 15 . The Commission 's
restrictive approach in that connection gives rise to legal
uncertainty for the parties, for which there is no need as far       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
as protection of the market from restrictions of competition
is concerned .
                                                                     The applicants make the following submissions in support
                                                                     of their claim for annulment :
The Commission's view that the requirement of functional
independence is not met takes no account of the special              1 . Article 2 ( 3 ) of Council Regulation No 2081 /92 ( 2 ) is not
nature of the insurance market, in which a set of controls                applicable pursuant to Article 1 73 and Article 1 84 of the
and prior authorizations is designed to guarantee the                     Treaty with the result that, in so far as concerns the
independence and financial solvency of the companies                      registration of feta , Commission Regulation ( EC )
operating in that sector.                                                 No 1107/96 was adopted without a valid enabling
                                                                          provision and therefore infringes an essential procedural
                                                                          requirement within the meaning of the second
Finally, the applicants consider that the Commission failed
adequately to state the reasons for its decision, in so far as            paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty :
the alleged absence of functional independence is based not
on the information available but on the view that the                     — Article 2 ( 3 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2081 /92
probability of such independence is insufficient . If on the                  infringes Article 30 of the Treaty .
other hand the Commission had expressed doubts
concerning the extent and the duration of the contributions          2 . Regulation ( EC ) No 1107/96 infringes essential
from the parent companies, the parties would have had an                  procedural requirements which , in so far as concerns the
opportunity to provide further information and possibly                   registration of feta, renders it invalid under the second
amend the agreement .                                                     paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty :
                                                                          — The Greek legislation was introduced too late for it
                                                                              to be possible for feta to be registered under
                                                                              Article 17 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2081 /92 .