title: Case T-466/14: Action brought on 24 June 2014  — Kingdom of Spain v Commission

text:
               11.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/45

         Action brought on 24 June 2014 — Kingdom of Spain v Commission
   (Case T-466/14)
   2014/C 261/72
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, Abogado del Estado)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               Partially annul the Commission’s decision of 14 April 2014, in that it held that the remission of import duties in accordance with Article 236 in conjunction with Article 220(2)(b) of the Community Customs Code [Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92] was justified and that the remission of another amount of import duty was not justified in a particular case (file REM 02/2013) as regards the refusal to remit import duties which is considered, wrongly, not to be justified, and

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to good administration in relation to Article 872a of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1).

                           —

                           The Applicant submits that in the context of a procedure such as that of remission, in which the Commission may request all the additional information it considers appropriate and must give reasons for adopting a unfavourable decision, a decision that includes reasons for the refusal other than those included in its previous communication is contrary to Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 220(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).

                           —

                           According to the Applicant the conditions laid down in settled case-law and forming the basis of numerous previous Commission decisions allowing remissions in the tuna sector in the past have been satisfied. In particular, the legislation is complex, the exporter did not give an incorrect version, the interpretation of the provisions on the basis of correction information is different, the Commission is in part responsible and the competent authorities persisted in their error and never applied the provisions correctly.


title: Case T-76/12: Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2015 — Nu Air Compressors and Tools v Commission (Dumping — Imports of certain compressors originating in China — Partial refusal to refund the anti-dumping duties paid — Determination of the export price — Deduction of anti-dumping duties — Adjustment of the temporal effects of an annulment)

text:
               11.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2015 — Nu Air Compressors and Tools v Commission
   (Case T-76/12) (1)

   ((Dumping - Imports of certain compressors originating in China - Partial refusal to refund the anti-dumping duties paid - Determination of the export price - Deduction of anti-dumping duties - Adjustment of the temporal effects of an annulment))
   (2016/C 007/21)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Nu Air Compressors and Tools SpA (Robassomero, Italy) (represented by: R. MacLean, Solicitor, and A. Bochon, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Stobiecka-Kuik, K. Talabér-Ritz and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for the partial annulment of Commission Decisions C(2011) 8824 final and C(2011) 8812 final of 6 December 2011 concerning applications for a refund of anti-dumping duties paid on imports of certain compressors originating in the People’s Republic of China, and, in the event that the General Court should annul those decisions, for the maintenance in force of those decisions until the Commission has adopted the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the General Court in this case.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decisions C(2011) 8824 final and C(2011) 8812 final of 6 December 2011 concerning applications for a refund of anti-dumping duties paid on imports of certain compressors originating in the People’s Republic of China in so far as that article does not grant Nu Air Compressors and Tools SpA a refund of the anti-dumping duties unduly paid beyond the amounts referred to therein;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 21.4.2012.


title: Case T-165/06: Action brought on 19 June 2006 — Fiorucci v OHIM — EDWIN (word mark Elio Fiorucci )

text:
               12.8.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/27

         Action brought on 19 June 2006 — Fiorucci v OHIM — EDWIN (word mark ‘Elio Fiorucci’)
   (Case T-165/06)
   (2006/C 190/50)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Elio Fiorucci (represented by: Adriano Vanzetti, Giulio Sironi and Francesco Rossi, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: EDWIN CO LTD
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 April 2006 in Case R 238/2005-1 and declare Community trade mark No 000709006 ‘Elio Fiorucci’, filed on 23 December 1997 and registered on 6 April 1999, is invalid or, in the alternative, revoked;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: word mark ‘Elio Fiorucci’ (application for registration No 709.006 for goods in Classes 3, 18 and 25).

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: EDWIN CO. LTD.

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: the applicant.

      Trade mark right of applicant for the declaration: right to the use of his own name.

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: application for declaration of invalidity granted.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal granted and application for declaration of invalidity rejected.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 52(2)(a), 12(a) and 50(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark in the light of, respectively, Articles 8(3), 21(1)(a), and 26(1)(b) of the Italian Industrial Property Code.


title: Case C-317/13: Action brought on 7 June 2013 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/7

         Action brought on 7 June 2013 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-317/13)
   (2013/C 226/13)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: F. Drexler, A. Caiola and M. Pencheva, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul Council Decision 2013/129/EU of 7 March 2013 on subjecting 4-methylamphetamine to control measures; (1)

               —

               maintain the effects of Council Decision 2013/129/EU until it is replaced by a new measure adopted in the prescribed manner;

               —

               order Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   First of all, the Parliament points out that the preamble to the contested decision refers to the following legal bases: Article 8(3) of Council Decision 2005/387/JHA of 10 May 2005 on the information exchange, risk-assessment and control of new psychoactive substances (2) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The Parliament infers therefrom that the Council implicitly refers to Article 34(2)(c) of the previous Treaty on European Union.
   The Parliament relies on two pleas in law in support of its action for annulment.
   In the first place, the Parliament claims that the Council based its decision on a legal basis, Article 34(2)(c) EU, which was repealed when the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force. Accordingly, the contested decision is no longer based solely on Decision 2005/387/JHA. The latter constitutes a secondary legal basis and is thus unlawful.
   In the second place, and in the light of the foregoing, the Parliament considers that the legislative process is vitiated by infringements of essential procedural requirements. First, if Article 34(2)(c) EU had been applicable, the Parliament should have been consulted before the adoption of the contested decision in accordance with Article 39(1) EU. However, the Parliament claims that that was not the case. Secondly, if it is held that the applicable provisions are those derived from the Treaty of Lisbon, the Parliament should have been involved in the legislative procedure on the basis of Article 83(1) TFEU. In either case, since the Parliament was not involved in the adoption of the contested decision, the latter is vitiated by an infringement of essential procedural requirements.
   Finally, if the Court decides to annul the contested decision, the Parliament considers that it would be necessary, in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 264 TFEU, to maintain the effects of the contested decision until it is replaced by a new measure adopted in the prescribed manner.

      (1)  OJ 2013 L 72, p. 11.

      (2)  OJ 2005 L 172, p. 32.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 May 2005 in Case C-20/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brugge in the criminal proceedings against Marcel Burmanjer, René Alexander Van Der Linden, Anthony De Jong (Free movement of goods — Article 28 EC — Measures having equivalent effect — Itinerant sale — Conclusion of contracts for subscriptions to periodicals — Prior authorisation)

text:
               23.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/3

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 26 May 2005
   in Case C-20/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brugge in the criminal proceedings against Marcel Burmanjer, René Alexander Van Der Linden, Anthony De Jong (1)

   (Free movement of goods - Article 28 EC - Measures having equivalent effect - Itinerant sale - Conclusion of contracts for subscriptions to periodicals - Prior authorisation)
   (2005/C 182/05)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case C-20/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brugge (Belgium), made by decision of 17 January 2003, received at the Court on 21 January 2003, in the criminal proceedings against Marcel Burmanjer, René Alexander Van Der Linden, Anthony De Jong — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, A. Rosas (Rapporteur), K. Lenaerts, S. von Bahr and K. Schiemann, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, Registrar, gave a judgment on 26 May 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:
   Article 28 EC does not preclude national rules under which a Member State makes an offence of the itinerant sale within its territory, without prior authorisation, of subscriptions to periodicals, where such rules apply, without distinction based on the origin of the products in question, to all the economic operators concerned carrying on their activity within that State, provided that such rules affect in the same manner, in law and in fact, the marketing of products originating in that State and that of products from other Member States.
   It is for the referring court to determine, having regard to the facts of the main proceedings, whether the application of national law is such as to ensure that those rules affect in the same manner, in law and in fact, the marketing of domestic products and that of products from other Member States, and, if that is not the case, to establish whether the rules in question are justified by an objective in the general interest within the meaning which the Court's case-law gives to that expression and whether they are proportional to that objective.

      (1)  OJ C 70 of 22.03.2003.


title: Case T-73/12: Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2015 — Einhell Germany and Others v Commission (Dumping — Imports of certain compressors originating in China — Partial refusal to refund the anti-dumping duties paid — Determination of the export price — Deduction of anti-dumping duties — Adjustment of the temporal effects of an annulment)

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/41

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2015 — Einhell Germany and Others v Commission
   (Case T-73/12) (1)

   ((Dumping - Imports of certain compressors originating in China - Partial refusal to refund the anti-dumping duties paid - Determination of the export price - Deduction of anti-dumping duties - Adjustment of the temporal effects of an annulment))
   (2016/C 048/46)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Einhell Germany AG (Landau an der Isar, Germany); Hans Einhell Nederlands BV (Breda, Netherlands); Einhell France SAS (Villepinte, France); Hans Einhell Österreich GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: R. MacLean, Solicitor, and A. Bochon, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Stobiecka-Kuik, K. Talabér-Ritz and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for the partial annulment of Commission Decisions K(2011) 8831 final, C(2011) 8825 final, C(2011) 8828 final and K(2011) 8810 final of 6 December 2011 concerning applications for a refund of anti-dumping duties paid on imports of certain compressors originating in the People’s Republic of China, and, in the event that the General Court should annul the contested decisions, for the maintenance in force of the effects of those decisions until the Commission has adopted the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the General Court in this case.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decisions K(2011) 8831 final, C(2011) 8825 final, C(2011) 8828 final and K(2011) 8810 final of 6 December 2011 concerning applications for a refund of anti-dumping duties paid on imports of certain compressors originating in the People’s Republic of China in so far as that article does not grant Einhell Germany AG, Hans Einhell Nederlands BV, Einhell France SAS and Hans Einhell Österreich GmbH a refund of the anti-dumping duties unduly paid beyond the amounts referred to therein;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 109, 14.4.2012.


title: Case C-222/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Teleklagenævnet (Denmark) lodged on 25 April 2013 — TDC A/S v Erhvervsstyrelsen

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Teleklagenævnet (Denmark) lodged on 25 April 2013 — TDC A/S v Erhvervsstyrelsen
   (Case C-222/13)
   2013/C 207/22
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Teleklagenævnet

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: TDC A/S

      Defendant: Erhvervsstyrelsen

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive), (1) including Article 32, preclude a Member State from laying down rules which do not allow an undertaking to lodge a claim against the Member State for separate recovery of the net costs of providing additional mandatory services not covered by Chapter II of that directive, where the undertaking’s profits from other services which are covered by the undertaking’s universal service obligations under Chapter II of that directive exceed the losses associated with the provision of the additional mandatory services?

               2.

               Does the Universal Service Directive preclude a Member State from laying down rules allowing undertakings only to lodge a claim against the Member State for recovery of the net costs of providing additional mandatory services which are not covered by Chapter II of that directive, if the net costs amount to an unreasonable burden for the undertakings?

               3.

               If question 2 is answered in the negative, may the Member State decide that there is no unreasonable burden associated with the provision of additional mandatory services not covered by Chapter II of that directive, if the undertaking as a whole has achieved profits from the provision of all those services where that undertaking has a universal service obligation, including the provision of services which the undertaking also would have provided without having the universal service obligation?

               4.

               Does the Universal Service Directive preclude a Member State from laying down rules that a designated undertaking’s net costs associated with the provision of universal service pursuant to Chapter II of that directive is to be calculated on the basis of all income and costs associated with the provision of the service in question, including that income and those costs which the undertaking also would have had without having the universal service obligation?

               5.

               Does it affect the answers to questions 1-4 if an additional mandatory service is required to be provided in Greenland which, under Annex II to the TFEU, is an overseas country or territory, when the Danish authorities impose an obligation on an undertaking established in Denmark and the undertaking has no other activities in Greenland?

               6.

               Of what significance are Article 107(1), Article 108(3) TFEU and Commission Decision of 20 December 2011 on the application of Article 106(2) TFEU to State aid in the form of public service compensation granted to certain undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest for the answers to questions 1-5?

               7.

               Of what significance is the principle of minimum distortion of competition in, inter alia, Article 1(2), Article 3(2) and recitals (4), (18), (23) and (26) in the preamble to and Part B of Annex IV to the Universal Service Directive for the answers to questions 1-5?

               8.

               If the provisions of the Universal Service Directive preclude national schemes as referred to in questions 1, 2 and 4, do those provisions or preclusions have direct effect?

      (1)  OJ L 108, p. 51.


title: Case T-380/11: Action brought on 15 July 2011 — Palirria Souliotis v Commission

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/29

         Action brought on 15 July 2011 — Palirria Souliotis v Commission
   (Case T-380/11)
   2011/C 282/60
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Anonymi Viotechniki kai Emporiki Etairia Kataskevis Konservon — Palirria Souliotis AE (Psacha, Greece) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 447/2011 of 6 May 2011 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2011 L 122, p. 63); and

               —

               Order the Commission to bear 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 that the Commission infringed an essential procedural requirement as it failed to properly consult the Nomenclature Committee. In addition, the Commission failed to address the opinion submitted by the applicant.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission exceeded the limits of the powers conferred upon it by Article 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1)

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law by classifying tinned stuff wine leaves under the CN-code set out in the annex to the contested regulation.


title: Case C-171/06 P: Appeal brought on  31 March 2006  by T.I.M.E. ART Uluslararasi Saat Ticareti ve dis Ticaret A.S. against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) delivered on  12 January 2006  in Case T-147/03: Devinlec Développement Innovation Leclerc SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), T.I.M.E. ART Uluslararasi Saat Ticareti ve Ticaret AS

text:
               20.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/10

         Appeal brought on 31 March 2006 by T.I.M.E. ART Uluslararasi Saat Ticareti ve dis Ticaret A.S. against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 12 January 2006 in Case T-147/03: Devinlec Développement Innovation Leclerc SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), T.I.M.E. ART Uluslararasi Saat Ticareti ve Ticaret AS
   (Case C-171/06 P)
   (2006/C 121/17)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellant: T.I.M.E. ART Uluslararasi Saat Ticareti ve dis Ticaret A.S. (represented by: M. Francetti and F. Jacobacci, avvocati)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Devinlec Développement Innovation Leclerc SA, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)(OHIM)
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claim that the Court should:

               —

               reverse the judgment issued on 12 January 2006 by the Court of First Instance in Case T-147/03, because it breaches article 8(1)(b) of EC Regulation No 40/94 (1);

               —

               admit the conclusions submitted by T.I.M.E during the first-level judgment in its brief dated 28 October 2003.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant submits that the judgment of the Court of First Instance should be set aside on the grounds that the Court infringed and misapplied article 8(1)(b) of EC Regulation No 40/94 by:

               —

               Failing to take account of the distinctive strength of the earlier trademark (‘QUANTIEME’), an essential element that must be taken into account when assessing likelihood of confusion;

               —

               Concluding that, in spite of the conceptual distance between the two marks, there is still a risk of confusion in view of their phonetic and visual similarities.

      (1)  JO L 011, p.1


title: Order of the Court of Justice (Third Chamber) of 30 April 2004 in Case C-172/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation): Robert Bourgard v Institut national d'assurances sociales pour travailleurs indépendants (Inasti) (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Social policy — Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security — Directive 79/7/EEC — Self-employed workers — Derogation allowed for the determination of pensionable age — Possibility for male workers to claim early entitlement to old-age pension — Limited to forms of discrimination necessary and objectively linked to the difference in pensionable ages — Method of calculation — Reduction for early entitlement)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/26

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE

   (Third Chamber)
   of 30 April 2004
   in Case C-172/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation): Robert Bourgard v Institut national d'assurances sociales pour travailleurs indépendants (Inasti) (1)

   (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Social policy - Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security - Directive 79/7/EEC - Self-employed workers - Derogation allowed for the determination of pensionable age - Possibility for male workers to claim early entitlement to old-age pension - Limited to forms of discrimination necessary and objectively linked to the difference in pensionable ages - Method of calculation - Reduction for early entitlement)
   (2004/C 118/45)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-172/02: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Cour de cassation (Belgium), seeking to obtain, in the proceedings pending before that court between Robert Bourgard and Institut national d'assurances sociales pour travailleurs indépendants (Inasti), a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article 7(1)(a) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security (OJ 1979 L 6, p. 24) – the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen and N. Colneric, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 30 April 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:
   Article 4(1) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security, read in conjunction with Article 7(1)(a), must be interpreted as meaning that, where the national legislation of a Member State has maintained a difference of retirement ages for men and women, it does not preclude that Member State, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings in this case, from calculating the amount of the retirement pension differently according to the sex of the worker and from applying to male workers, who alone have the right to apply for an early retirement pension in the five years prior to the normal age of retirement, a reduction of five per cent for each year in which the pension is taken in advance.

      (1)  OJ C 156 of 29. 6. 2002.


title: Case C-200/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Portugal) lodged on 12 April 2016 — Securitas — Serviços e Tecnologia de Segurança SA v ICTS Portugal — Consultadoria de Aviação Comercial SA and Others

text:
               13.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/36

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Portugal) lodged on 12 April 2016 — Securitas — Serviços e Tecnologia de Segurança SA v ICTS Portugal — Consultadoria de Aviação Comercial SA and Others
      (Case C-200/16)
      (2016/C 211/47)
      Language of the case: Portuguese

         Referring court

      Supremo Tribunal de Justiça

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Securitas — Serviços e Tecnologia de Segurança SA

         Defendants: ICTS Portugal — Consultadoria de Aviação Comercial SA, Arthur George Resendes, Jorge Alberto Rodrigues Pereira, José Manuel Duque Medeiros, José Octávio Pimentel do Couto Macedo, Márcio Aurélio Mendes, Marco Paulo Viveiros Câmara, Milton César Pimentel Freitas, Milton Miguel Miranda Santos, Nelson Manuel Rego Sousa, Osvaldo Manuel Rego Arruda, Pedro Miguel Amaral Pacheco, Pedro Miguel Costa Tavares, Rui Miguel Costa Tavares, Rui Sérgio Gouveia Terra, Jaime Amorim Amaral Melo, Marcos Daniel Varandas Carvalho, Valter Eurico Rocha da Silva e Sousa

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Does the situation in the present case amount to a transfer of an undertaking or business, where the defendant, ‘ICTS’, has been transferred to the defendant, ‘SECURITAS’, following a public call for tenders in which the successful bidder, ‘SECURITAS’, was awarded a contract for the provision of security guard services at the Ponta Delgada port in the island of São Miguel, Azores, and does that situation amount to a transfer of an economic entity for the purposes of Article 1(1)(a) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC (1) of 12 March 2001?

                  2.

                  Is the situation in the present case merely one in which a competing undertaking succeeds another following the award of a service provision contract to the successful undertaking in a public call for tenders, and as such is excluded from the notion of a transfer of an undertaking or business for the purposes of that directive?

                  3.

                  Does Clause 13(2) of the Collective Agreement concluded by AES, AESIRF, STAD and other trade union federations contravene Community law on the meaning of a transfer of an undertaking or business arising from Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 in that it stipulates that: ‘the loss of a customer by an operator following an award of a service contract to another operator shall not fall within the notion of a transfer of an undertaking or business’?

         (1)  Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses (OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16).


title: Judgment of the Court of 29 July 2016 in Case E-32/15 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Principality of Liechtenstein (Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2006/126/EC — Directive 2011/94/EU — Directive 2012/36/EU)

text:
               6.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/15

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 29 July 2016
   in Case E-32/15
   EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Principality of Liechtenstein
   (Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2006/126/EC — Directive 2011/94/EU — Directive 2012/36/EU)
   (2017/C 108/13)
   In Case E-32/15, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Principality of Liechtenstein — APPLICATION for a declaration that the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Acts referred to at point 24f of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences (recast), Commission Directive 2011/94/EU of 28 November 2011 amending Directive 2006/126/EC and Commission Directive 2012/36/EU of 19 November 2012 amending Directive 2006/126/EC), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Acts within the time prescribed, or in any event by failing to inform the EFTA Surveillance Authority thereof, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 29 July 2016, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Declares that the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Acts referred to at point 24f of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences (recast), Commission Directive 2011/94/EU of 28 November 2011 amending Directive 2006/126/EC and Commission Directive 2012/36/EU of 19 November 2012 amending Directive 2006/126/EC), as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Acts within the times prescribed.

               2.

               Orders the Principality of Liechtenstein to bear the costs of the proceedings.


title: Case T-391/08: Action brought on 15 September 2008 — Ellinika Nafpigia v Commission

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/29

         Action brought on 15 September 2008 — Ellinika Nafpigia v Commission
   (Case T-391/08)
   (2008/C 327/55)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Ellinika Nafpigia (Skaramagkas, Greece) (represented by: I. Drosos, K. Loukopoulos, A. Khiotellis, K. Panagoulea, P. Tzioumas, A. Balla, B. Voutsakis and X. Gkousta, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul Articles 1(2), 2, 3, 5, 6, 8(2), 9, 11 to 16, 18 and 19 of the contested decision of 2 July 2008 concerning Aid C 16/2004 (formerly NN 29/2004, CP 71/2002 and CP 133/2005) granted by Greece to the undertaking Ellinika Nafpigia A.E.;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs in the present proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, Ellinika Nafpigia A.E (Hellenic Shipyards; ‘ENAE’), challenges 12 of the 16 measures imposed in Commission Decision C(2008) 3118 final of 2 July 2008 concerning Aid C 16/2004 (formerly NN 29/2004, CP 71/2002 and CP 133/2005), and puts forward nine pleas in law in support of its claim for annulment.
   By its first plea, the applicant submits that the Commission did not apply Article 298 EC notwithstanding the acceptance in the contested decision that ENAE is a military shipyard.
   By its second plea, the applicant contends that the contested decision failed to apply, or misapplied, Article 296 EC.
   By its third plea, the applicant asserts that the contested decision contains a manifest error of assessment, or otherwise an insufficient statement of reasons, in finding that ENAE's creditworthiness standing was reduced from 1997 to June 1999 and thereafter non-existent. In particular, the contested decision (a) did not assess ENAE's creditworthiness in relation to the specific feature that it is a military industrial unit, (b) disputed without justification ENAE's economic parameters and also the entirely acceptable guarantees which it was in a position to provide in order to be financed by any private bank and (c) ignored without justification and misappraised the interest of Elliniki Trapeza Viomikhanikis Anaptixis (Hellenic Industrial Development Bank; ‘ETVA’) as majority shareholder in ENAE, in the value of, and return from, that commercial stake held by it.
   By its fourth plea, relating to the wrongful implementation of the aid which took the form of the writing-off of debts of EUR 160 million, the applicant submits that approval decision C 10/1994 did not lay down conditions and was not wrongly implemented, and in the alternative that ENAE was not granted the whole of the foregoing amount and, therefore, that sums not granted cannot be recovered. The applicant further submits that Article 296 EC must be applied both when assessing the possible existence of aid and when calculating any recoverable benefit. Finally, recovery of the aid infringes the principle of proportionality, the principle of legal certainty and the principle that the legitimate expectations of a recipient of aid should be protected.
   By its fifth plea, relating to wrongful implementation of the aid approved in 2002 of EUR 29,5 million for the closure of facilities, by reason of a supposed failure to observe the countervailing condition restricting the applicant's repair capacity, the applicant submits that approval decision N 513/2001 was misapplied.
   By its sixth and seventh pleas, relating to wrongful implementation of the investment aid of EUR 22,9 million and the alleged unlawful participation of ETVA in the increases in share capital to bring about that investment, the applicant submits that approval decision N 401/1997 was misapplied, that Article 87(1) EC was infringed as the Commission wrongly found that measure E10 constituted unlawful State aid, that the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations was infringed and that Article 296 EC was not applied.
   By its eighth plea, relating to the loans and guarantees which the applicant received in the relevant period of 1997 to 2001 — which is in addition to the third plea which applies to the loans and guarantees as regards the misappraisal of the applicant's creditworthiness — the applicant pleads: (a) misapplication of the test of a private investor in a market economy; (b) misapplication of Article 87(2) EC, Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1540/1998 (1) and Article 4 of Directive 90/684/EEC (2); (c) infringement of the principle of proportionality and manifest error of assessment as regards ENAE's creditworthiness after its complete privatisation in June 2002, in relation to calculation of the amounts to be recovered in respect of the measures under examination, since the contested decision did not reduce the applicable reference interest rate; and (d) a mistake of fact in relation to the loans and guarantees which ETVA granted the applicant, since the contested decision did not take into account that following ETVA's privatisation the measures under examination did not include elements of State aid.
   By its ninth plea, relating to unlawful financing of ENAE's non-military business by its military business, the applicant pleads: (a) infringement of Articles 296, 298 and 88(1) EC; (b) misapplication of the private investor test with regard to military contracts and (c) a failure to state reasons and misappraisal as regards determination of the sums to be recovered.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1540/98 of 29 June 1998 establishing new rules on aid to shipbuilding (OJ 1998 L 202, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Directive 90/684/EEC of 21 December 1990 on aid to shipbuilding (OJ 1990 L 380, p. 27).


title: Case C-374/14 P: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 12 February 2015 — Walcher Meßtechnik GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Appeal — Rules of Procedure of the Court — Article 181 — Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark HIPERDRIVE — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 7(1)(c) — General principle of equal treatment)

text:
               4.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 146/12

         Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 12 February 2015 — Walcher Meßtechnik GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

   (Case C-374/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Rules of Procedure of the Court - Article 181 - Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark HIPERDRIVE - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 7(1)(c) - General principle of equal treatment))
   (2015/C 146/18)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Walcher Meßtechnik GmbH (represented by S. Walter, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

      Operative part of the order

               1)

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2)

               Walcher Meßtechnik GmbH shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 351, 06.10.2014.


17.7.1999              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 204/37
        Removal from the register of Case C-27/97 (1)                         Removal from the register of Case C-7/99 P (1)
                          (1999/C 204/86)                                                     (1999/C 204/90)
By order of 30 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                       By order of 30 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                       of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-27/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                       the register of Case C-7/99 P: Franco Campoli v Commission
from the Tribunale di Genova): Ligure Piemontese SpA (Società
                                                                       of the European Communities.
d’Intermediazione Mobiliare) v Amministrazione delle Finanze
dello Stato.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.
( 1) OJ C 74 of 8.3.1997.
        Removal from the register of Case C-28/97 (1)                         Removal from the register of Case C-326/98 (1)
                          (1999/C 204/87)                                                     (1999/C 204/91)
By order of 30 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from               By order of 6 May 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
the register of Case C-28/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling       of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
from the Tribunale di Genova): SO.ME.FI Srl v Amministra-              the register of Case C-326/98: Commission of the European
zione delle Finanze dello Stato.                                       Communities v French Republic.
(1) OJ C 74 of 8.3.1997.                                               (1) OJ C 312 of 10.10.1998.
        Removal from the register of Case C-29/97 (1)
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-320/98 (1)
                          (1999/C 204/88)
                                                                                (1999/C 204/92)
By order of 30 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-29/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling       By order of 7 May 1999 the President of the Third Chamber
from the Tribunale di Genova): Società Anonima Immobiliare             of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has
Allessandro Srl (SAIA) v Amministrazione delle Finanze dello           ordered the removal from the register of Case C-320/98:
Stato.                                                                 Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of
                                                                       Luxembourg.
(1) OJ C 74 of 8.3.1997.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.
        Removal from the register of Case C-30/97 (1)
                          (1999/C 204/89)                                     Removal from the register of Case C-73/98 (1)
By order of 30 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from                                      (1999/C 204/93)
the register of Case C-30/97 (reference for a preliminary
ruling from the Tribunale di Genova): SVIN Servizi SpA v               By order of 10 May 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato.                             of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                       the register of Case C-73/98: Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
(1) OJ C 74 of 8.3.1997.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 151 of 16.5.1998.


title: Case T-284/05: Action brought on 14 July 2005 against the Commission of the European Communities by Christos Michail

text:
               17.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 229/33

         Action brought on 14 July 2005 against the Commission of the European Communities by Christos Michail
   (Case T-284/05)
   (2005/C 229/71)
   Language of the case: Greek
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 14 July 2005 by Christos Michail, resident in Brussels, Belgium, represented by Charalambos Meidanis, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested acts/decisions;

               —

               order that financial reparation be made for non-material damage in the amount of EUR 90 000 (ninety thousand);

               —

               make an order as to costs as laid down by law.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, who is a Commission official, seeks the annulment of his career development report for the period from 1.4.2003 to 31.12.2003 and an order that financial reparation be made for the non-material damage which he claims to have suffered. He claims in support of his application that the report in question did not contain a description of his post, since, moreover, as he claims, during the period in question he simply did not occupy any post. He also claims that the report in question did not even contain a description of his individual objective goals to be attained and did not contain any reasoning for the points he was given; it was drawn up by a body and person having no competence to do so; it was not drawn up on the basis of his actual work but was based on the assessments of an earlier staff report. In the light of all the foregoing the applicant claims that there was infringement of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations of Officials and all the implementing provisions, infringement of Article 12a of those Staff Regulations, which refers to psychological harassment, manifest error of assessment as regards the facts, non-existent or otherwise insufficient reasons for the acts challenged, misuse of powers on the part of the Commission and infringement of the principle of fair and equal treatment of staff and the principle of sound administration.


title: Case C-518/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam — Netherlands) — UPC Nederland BV v Gemeente Hilversum (Electronic communications networks and services — Directives 97/66/EC, 2002/19/EC, 2002/20/EC, 2002/21/EC and 2002/22/EC — Scope ratione materiae — Provision of a basic package of radio and television programmes via cable — Sale by a municipality of its cable network to a private undertaking — Contractual clause concerning the tariff — Powers of the national regulatory authorities — Principle of sincere cooperation)

text:
               11.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/4

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam — Netherlands) — UPC Nederland BV v Gemeente Hilversum
   (Case C-518/11) (1)

   (Electronic communications networks and services - Directives 97/66/EC, 2002/19/EC, 2002/20/EC, 2002/21/EC and 2002/22/EC - Scope ratione materiae - Provision of a basic package of radio and television programmes via cable - Sale by a municipality of its cable network to a private undertaking - Contractual clause concerning the tariff - Powers of the national regulatory authorities - Principle of sincere cooperation)
   2014/C 9/05
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Gerechtshof te Amsterdam

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: UPC Nederland BV

      Defendant: Gemeente Hilversum

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Gerechtshof te Amsterdam — Interpretation of Article 8(4) of Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (Access Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 7), Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33), and Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51) — Provision of a package of free-to-air radio and television programmes via cable — Municipality having disposed of its cable operation — Limitation of retail prices — Competition rules — Application by the national courts

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 2(c) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) must be interpreted as meaning that a service consisting in the supply of a basic package of radio and television programmes via cable, the charge for which includes transmission costs as well as payments to broadcasters and royalties paid to copyright collecting societies in connection with the transmission of programme content, falls within the definition of an ‘electronic communications service’ and, consequently, within the substantive scope both of that directive and Directive 97/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the telecommunications sector, Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (Access Directive), Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) and Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive), constituting the new regulatory framework applicable to electronic communications services, in so far as that service entails primarily the transmission of television content on the cable distribution network to the receiving terminal of the final consumer.

               2.

               Those directives must be interpreted as meaning that, from the expiry of the deadline for their implementation, they preclude an entity such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which is not a national regulatory authority, from intervening directly in retail tariffs in respect of the supply of a basic package of radio and television programmes via cable.

               3.

               The same directives must be interpreted as precluding, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings and having regard to the principle of sincere cooperation, an entity which is not a national regulatory authority from relying on, as against a supplier of basic packages of radio and television programmes via cable, a clause stipulated in an agreement concluded prior to the adoption of the new regulatory framework applicable to electronic communications services which restricts that supplier’s freedom to set tariffs.

      (1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.


C 144/64               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    15.6.2002
       Removal from the register of Case T-75/01 (1)                            Removal from the register of Case T-185/01 (1)
                        (2002/C 144/125)                                                        (2002/C 144/126)
                   (Language of the Case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: French)
By order of 21 January 2002 the President of the Fourth
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                   By order of 28 January 2002 the President of the First Chamber
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case                of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
T-75/01: Systems-Europe S.A. v Commission of the European                ordered the removal from the register of Case T-185/01:
Communities.                                                             Dominique Ramaekers v Commission of the European Com-
                                                                         munities.
(1) OJ C 161 of 2.6.2001.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.


title: Case F-58/14: Action brought on 23 June 2014 — ZZ v EMA

text:
               1.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 292/63

         Action brought on 23 June 2014 — ZZ v EMA
   (Case F-58/14)
   2014/C 292/82
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Rodrigues, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Medicines Agency (EMA)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of the EMA not to renew the applicant’s contract of employment as temporary agent and compensation for the alleged damage suffered.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the EMA of 12 September 2013 not to renew the applicant’s contract of employment;

               —

               Together with, and so far as necessary, the EMA’s decision dated 13 March 2014, rejecting the applicant’s complaint dated 19 November 2013 against the aforementioned decision;

               —

               Repair the material prejudice suffered by the applicant;

               —

               Repair the moral prejudice suffered by the applicant, estimated at EUR 20  000;

               —

               Order the EMA to pay all the costs incurred by the applicant for the present appeal.


title: Case F-49/13: Action brought on 22 May 2013 — ZZ v Council

text:
               27.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 215/20

         Action brought on 22 May 2013 — ZZ v Council
   (Case F-49/13)
   2013/C 215/29
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision not to take into consideration the application submitted by the applicant for a position available at the Council.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decision of 17 January 2013 by the mobility department of the GSC refusing to take into consideration the application submitted by the applicant for position 2244 DGA 2A, confirmed, following the applicant’s complaint, by the mobility department’s decision of 12 February 2013;

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.


title: Case C-270/08: Action brought on 24 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Hungary

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/35

         Action brought on 24 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Hungary
   (Case C-270/08)
   (2008/C 209/53)
   Language of the case: Hungarian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: W. Wils and V. Bottka, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Hungary
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that the Republic of Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1), by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with that directive and, in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission;

               —

               order the Republic of Hungary to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for transposition of the directive into national law expired on 12 June 2007.

      (1)  OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22.


title: Case C-363/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial de Póvoa de Lanhoso (Portugal) lodged on 21 July 2010 — Maria de Jesus Barbosa Rodrigues v Companhia de Seguros Zurich SA

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/19

      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial de Póvoa de Lanhoso (Portugal) lodged on 21 July 2010 — Maria de Jesus Barbosa Rodrigues v Companhia de Seguros Zurich SA
      (Case C-363/10)
      ()
      (2010/C 288/31)
      Language of the case: Portuguese

         Referring court

      Tribunal Judicial de Póvoa de Lanhoso

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Maria de Jesus Barbosa Rodrigues

         Defendant: Companhia de Seguros Zurich SA

         Question referred

      In a motor-vehicle collision in which none of the drivers is liable for the accident on the basis of fault, and which has resulted in the death of one them, is it contrary to Community law, in particular Article 3(1) of the First Directive (Directive 72/166/EEC), (1) Article 2(1) of the Second Directive (84/5/EEC) (2) and Article 1 of the Third Directive (90/232/EEC), (3) as those provisions have been interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Communities, for it to be possible to apportion liability for risk (Article 506(1) and (2) of the Código Civil) with a direct impact on the amount of compensation to be awarded to the persons having a right to compensation — the victim’s parents — (since that apportionment of liability for risk will entail a commensurate reduction in the amount of compensation)?

         (1)  Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (OJ, English Special Edition 1972 (II), p. 360).

         (2)  Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1984 L 8, p. 17).

         (3)  Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1990 L 129, p. 33).


title: Case T-717/13: Action brought on 27 December 2013 — Chair Entertainment Group v OHIM — Libelle (SHADOW COMPLEX)

text:
               8.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/23

      Action brought on 27 December 2013 — Chair Entertainment Group v OHIM — Libelle (SHADOW COMPLEX)
      (Case T-717/13)
      (2014/C 71/43)
      Language in which the application was lodged: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Chair Entertainment Group LLC (Utah, United States of America) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Libelle AG (Stuttgart, Germany)

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 October 2013 given in Case R 776/2011-2;

                  —

                  Order the defendant to bear the costs of proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

         Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

         Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘SHADOW COMPLEX’ for goods and services in Class 9 — Community trade mark application No 8 235 434

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

         Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark ‘DBShadow’ for goods and services in Classes 9 et 42 — Community trade mark registration No 1 457 944, the word mark ‘BusinessShadow’ for goods and services in Classes 9 et 42 — Community trade mark registration No 3 749 439, the German word mark ‘BusinessShadow’ for goods and services in Classes 9 et 42 and the German word mark ‘FSShadow’ for goods and services in Classes 9 et 42

         Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

         Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

         Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR


title: Case F-157/12: Action brought on 21 December 2012 — ZZ v Parliament

text:
               9.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/31

         Action brought on 21 December 2012 — ZZ v Parliament
   (Case F-157/12)
   2013/C 71/56
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Tymen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision to reassign the applicant and of the implied decision terminating, with retroactive effect, her duties as adviser to the Director of a directorate of the European Parliament and claim for compensation.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decision of 20 June 2012 rejecting her complaint brought against the decision of 20 March 2012 to reassign her;

               —

               annul the decision of the President of the European Parliament of 20 March 2012 which terminated, with retroactive effect from 15 March 2012, the applicant’s duties as adviser to the Director and which transferred her, from that date, to a department of another directorate as an adviser;

               —

               acknowledge the damage suffered by the applicant on several levels (health, dignity, professional reputation, loss of equal opportunities in her career development) as a result of the instances of harassment and maladministration which have recurred since 2009;

               —

               order that financial reparation be made for that damage by granting the applicant damages which may be equitably evaluated at EUR 400 000;

               —

               order the Parliament to pay the costs.


title: Case C-52/09: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 February 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Stockholms tingsrätt — Sweden) — Konkurrensverket v TeliaSonera AB (Preliminary ruling — Article 102 TFEU — Abuse of dominant position — Prices applied by telecommunications operator — ADSL input services — Broadband connection services to end users — Margin squeeze on competitors)

text:
               2.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/3

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 February 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Stockholms tingsrätt — Sweden) — Konkurrensverket v TeliaSonera AB
   (Case C-52/09) (1)

   (Preliminary ruling - Article 102 TFEU - Abuse of dominant position - Prices applied by telecommunications operator - ADSL input services - Broadband connection services to end users - Margin squeeze on competitors)
   2011/C 103/03
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Stockholms tingsrätt

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Konkurrensverket

      Defendant: TeliaSonera Sverige AB

      Intervening party: Tele2 Sverige AB

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Stockholms tingsrätt — Interpretation of Article 82 EC — Margin squeeze — Prices applied by a telecommunications operator which formerly held a historical monopoly for ADSL access — Spread between the prices invoiced by the operator to intermediate operators for the wholesale supply of ADSL access and the tariffs applied by the operator to consumers for ADSL access not sufficient to cover the additional costs borne by the operator itself for the supply of those retail services

      Operative part of the judgment

   In the absence of any objective justification, the fact that a vertically integrated undertaking, holding a dominant position on the wholesale market in asymmetric digital subscriber line input services, applies a pricing practice of such a kind that the spread between the prices applied on that market and those applied in the retail market for broadband connection services to end users is not sufficient to cover the specific costs which that undertaking must incur in order to gain access to that retail market may constitute an abuse within the meaning of Article 102 TFEU.
   When assessing whether such a practice is abusive, all of the circumstances of each individual case should be taken into consideration. In particular:

               —

               as a general rule, primarily the prices and costs of the undertaking concerned on the retail services market should be taken into consideration. Only where it is not possible, in particular circumstances, to refer to those prices and costs should those of competitors on the same market be examined, and

               —

               it is necessary to demonstrate that, taking particular account of whether the wholesale product is indispensable, that practice produces an anti-competitive effect, at least potentially, on the retail market, and that the practice is not in any way economically justified.

         The following factors are, as a general rule, not relevant to such an assessment:

               —

               the absence of any regulatory obligation on the undertaking concerned to supply asymmetric digital subscriber line input services on the wholesale market in which it holds a dominant position;

               —

               the degree of dominance held by that undertaking in that market;

               —

               the fact that that undertaking does not also hold a dominant position in the retail market for broadband connection services to end users;

               —

               whether the customers to whom such a pricing practice is applied are new or existing customers of the undertaking concerned;

               —

               the fact that the dominant undertaking is unable to recoup any losses which the establishment of such a pricing practice might cause, or

               —

               the extent to which the markets concerned are mature markets and whether they involve new technology, requiring high levels of investment

      (1)  OJ C 90, 18.04.2009.


title: Case C-117/12: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Burgos — Spain) — La Retoucherie de Manuela S. L. v La Retoucherie de Burgos S. C. (Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure — Competition — Agreements between undertakings — Article 81 EC — Block exemption for vertical agreements — Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 — Article 5(b) — Non-compete obligation imposed on the buyer upon expiry of a franchise agreement — Premises and land from which the buyer has operated during the contract period)

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/8

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Burgos — Spain) — La Retoucherie de Manuela S. L. v La Retoucherie de Burgos S. C.
   (Case C-117/12) (1)

   (Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure - Competition - Agreements between undertakings - Article 81 EC - Block exemption for vertical agreements - Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 - Article 5(b) - Non-compete obligation imposed on the buyer upon expiry of a franchise agreement - Premises and land from which the buyer has operated during the contract period)
   2013/C 108/16
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Audiencia Provincial de Burgos

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: La Retoucherie de Manuela S. L.

      Defendant: La Retoucherie de Burgos S. C.

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Audiencia Provincial de Burgos — Interpretation of Article 5(b) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 of 22 December 1999 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices (OJ 1999 L 336, p. 21) — Block exemption — Distortions of competition not exempt — Conditions imposed on the buyer upon expiry of the franchise agreement — Concept of ‘premises and land from which the buyer has operated during the contract period’

      Operative part of the order

   Article 5(b) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 of 22 December 1999 on the application of Article 81(3) [EC] to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices, must be interpreted as meaning that the words ‘premises and land from which the buyer has operated during the contract period’ refers only to the place from which the contract goods or services are offered for sale and not to the whole of the territory in which those goods or services may be sold under a franchise agreement.

      (1)  OJ C 151, 26.5.2012.


title: Case T-358/09: Judgment of the General Court of 13 April 2011 — Sociedad Agricola Requingua v OHIM — Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Toro (TORO DE PIEDRA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark TORO DE PIEDRA — Earlier Community figurative mark D. ORIGEN TORO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Right to be heard — Obligation to state the reasons on which a decision is based — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               28.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 160/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 April 2011 — Sociedad Agricola Requingua v OHIM — Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Toro (TORO DE PIEDRA)
   (Case T-358/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark TORO DE PIEDRA - Earlier Community figurative mark D. ORIGEN TORO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Right to be heard - Obligation to state the reasons on which a decision is based - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)
   2011/C 160/30
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sociedad Agricola Requingua Ltda (Santiago, Chile) (represented by: E. Vorbuchner, C. Ley and M. Heidelberg, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo and A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Toro (Toro, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 June 2009 (Case R 1117/2008-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Toro and Sociedad Agricola Requingua Ltda.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Sociedad Agricola Requingua Ltda to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.


title: Case C-610/16 P: Appeal brought on 28 November 2016 by Anastasia-Soultana Gaki against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) made on 19 September 2016 in Case T-112/16, Gaki v Parliament

text:
               19.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/8

         Appeal brought on 28 November 2016 by Anastasia-Soultana Gaki against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) made on 19 September 2016 in Case T-112/16, Gaki v Parliament
   (Case C-610/16 P)
   (2017/C 195/12)
   Language of the Case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Anastasia-Soultana Gaki (represented by: G. Keisers, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament
   By order of 6 April 2017, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Tenth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to bear her own costs.


title: Case T-46/10: Judgment of the General Court of 20 March 2014  — Faci v Commission (Competition  — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices  — European markets in ESBO/esters heat stabilisers  — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement  — Fixing prices, allocating markets and customers and exchanging commercially sensitive information  — Proof of one aspect of the infringement  — Fines  — Equal treatment  — Good administration  — Reasonable time  — Proportionality)

text:
               12.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/30

         Judgment of the General Court of 20 March 2014 — Faci v Commission
   (Case T-46/10) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European markets in ESBO/esters heat stabilisers - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Fixing prices, allocating markets and customers and exchanging commercially sensitive information - Proof of one aspect of the infringement - Fines - Equal treatment - Good administration - Reasonable time - Proportionality))
   2014/C 142/37
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Faci SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: S. Piccardo, lawyer, S. Crosby, Solicitor, and S. Santoro, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially by K. Mojzesowicz, F. Ronkes Agerbeek and J. Bourke, subsequently by F. Ronkes Agerbeek, J. Bourke and F. Castilla Contreras and lastly by F. Ronkes Agerbeek, F. Castilla Contreras and R. Sauer, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 8682 final of 11 November 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38589 — Heat Stabilisers), or, in the alternative, for annulment of the fine imposed on the applicant or a reduction in its amount.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Faci SpA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.


title: Case T-31/05: Action brought on 25 January 2005 by Sergio Rossi S.p.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               16.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/30

         Action brought on 25 January 2005 by Sergio Rossi S.p.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case T-31/05)
   (2005/C 93/60)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 25 January 2005 by Sergio Rossi S.p.A., established in San Mauro Pascoli (Italy), represented by A. Ruo, lawyer.
   K & L Ruppert Stiftung & Co. Handels-KG, established in Weilheim (Germany) was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the applicant's costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               K & L Ruppert Stiftung & Co. Handels-KG

               Community trade mark concerned:

               The word mark ‘ROSSI’ for goods in class 25 (Outer and underclothing; gloves, collar protectors, scarves, neckties, headgear) — application No 876 094

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               Sergio Rossi

               Trade mark or sign cited in opposition:

               The national and international, word and figurative marks ‘SERGIO ROSSI’ for goods class 25 (articles of clothing, including boots, shoes and slippers, scarves, neck-ties, …)

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Upholding of the opposition

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division

               Pleas in law:

               Violation of Article 8 of Council Regulation No 40/94.


title: Case T-146/08: Action brought on 17 April 2008 — Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll v OHIM — Redrock Construction (REDROCK)

text:
               21.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 158/19

         Action brought on 17 April 2008 — Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll v OHIM — Redrock Construction (REDROCK)
   (Case T-146/08)
   (2008/C 158/32)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll GmbH & Co. OHG (Gladbeck, Germany) (represented by: S. Beckmann, Rechstanwältin)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Redrock Construction s.r.o. (Prague, Czech Republic)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the defendant's decision of 18 February 2008 in Case R 506/2007-4;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Redrock Construction s.r.o

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘REDROCK’ for goods and services in classes 1, 2, 17, 19, 36 and 37 (application No 3 866 365).

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word mark ‘Rock’ for goods and services in classes 1, 6-8, 17, 19, 37 and 42 (No 302 29 274); the opposition concerns registration in all classes with the exception of class 36.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition allowed and application refused in part.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Contested decision annulled and opposition rejected.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), as there is a likelihood of confusion, or at least a likelihood of association, between the opposing marks.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: Case F-136/06: Action brought on 30 November 2006 — Reali v Commission

text:
               27.1.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 20/38

         Action brought on 30 November 2006 — Reali v Commission
   (Case F-136/06)
   (2007/C 20/58)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Enzo Reali (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: S. A. Pappas, Lawyer)

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

               —

               Annul the Decision of the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment dated 30 August 2006 in response to the complaint lodged on 7 July 2006 by Mr Enzo Reali;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant is a contractual agent classified in Fonction Group IV, grade 14. He claims that he should have been classified in grade 16, because in the calculation of his professional experience the Commission should have considered his degree (Laurea in Scienze Agrarie) as a Bachelor Degree plus a Master.
   In support of his action, the applicant pleads that:

               —

               The Commission breached Directive 89/48/EEC (1), as amended by Directive 2001/19/EC (2), and the principle of subsidiarity, by refusing to recognise that the Applicant's degree is equivalent to a ‘Bachelor Degree plus a Master’ even though the equivalence had previously been clearly recognised at national level by his University;

               —

               The Commission breached the principle of non-discrimination by unduly refusing to count the Applicant's Master as a year of professional experience;

               —

               The attacked decision is illegal due to a manifest error of assessment in the calculation of the professional experience of the Applicant and to a lack of motivation;

               —

               The rejection of the complaint is based on implementing measures [Article 3 (1) (c) of the General implementing provisions on the procedures governing the engagement and the use of contract staff at the Commission] that are beyond the power delegated to the Commission by Article 86 (6) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the Communities.

      (1)  Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration (OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16).

      (2)  Directive 2001/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2001 amending Council Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC on the general system for the recognition of professional qualifications and Council Directives 77/452/EEC, 77/453/EEC, 78/686/EEC, 78/687/EEC, 78/1026/EEC, 78/1027/EEC, 80/154/EEC, 80/155/EEC, 85/384/EEC, 85/432/EEC, 85/433/EEC and 93/16/EEC concerning the professions of nurse responsible for general care, dental practitioner, veterinary surgeon, midwife, architect, pharmacist and doctor (OJ L 2006, p. 1).


title: Case C-588/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Brașov (Romania) lodged on 18 December 2014 — Sergiu Octav Constantinescu v Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Sălaj

text:
               30.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/17

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Brașov (Romania) lodged on 18 December 2014 — Sergiu Octav Constantinescu v Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Sălaj
      (Case C-588/14)
      (2015/C 107/23)
      Language of the case: Romanian

         Referring court

      Curtea de Apel Cluj

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Sergiu Octav Constantinescu

         Respondent: Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Sălaj

         Questions referred

                  1)

                  In the light of Law No 9/2012 and the purpose of the tax provided for thereunder, must Article 110 TFEU be interpreted as precluding a Member State of the European Union from establishing a tax on pollutant emissions, applicable upon the registration of motor vehicles coming from another Member State of the European Union, where that tax does not apply to the registration of domestic motor vehicles, upon the transfer of ownership of such vehicles, in respect of which such a tax or a similar tax has already been paid, where the amount of such a residual tax incorporated into the value of the motor vehicles on the domestic market is lower than the new tax?

                  2)

                  In the light of Law No 9/2012 and the purpose of the tax provided for thereunder, must Article 110 TFEU be interpreted as precluding a Member State of the European Union from establishing a tax on pollutant emissions, applicable upon the registration of motor vehicles from another Member State of the European Union, but which, in the case of domestic motor vehicles, is payable only upon the transfer of ownership of such vehicles, the result being that a foreign vehicle cannot be used unless the tax is paid, but a domestic vehicle can be used for an unlimited time without the tax being paid, until the ownership of that vehicle is transferred, if ever, followed by its registration in the name of the new owner?


title: Case C-553/10 P: Appeal brought on 25 November 2010 by the European Commission against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Sixth Chamber) on 13 September 2010 in Case T-452/04 Éditions Jacob v European Commission

text:
               12.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/5

         Appeal brought on 25 November 2010 by the European Commission against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Sixth Chamber) on 13 September 2010 in Case T-452/04 Éditions Jacob v European Commission

   (Case C-553/10 P)
   2011/C 46/07
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet, O. Beynet and S. Noë, Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Éditions Odile Jacob SAS, Wendel Investissement SA, Lagardère SCA

      Form of order sought

               —

               set aside the judgment of 13 September 2010 in Case T-452/04 Éditions Odile Jacob SAS v Commission in so far as it annulled Commission Decision D(2004) 203365 of 30 July 2004 relating to the approval of Wendel Investissement as purchaser of the assets sold in accordance with Commission Decision 2004/422/EC of 7 January 2004 declaring a concentration compatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.2978 — Lagardère/Natexis/VUP); (1)

               —

               rule, if appropriate, definitively on the issues which form the subject-matter of this appeal and dismiss the action for annulment, and

               —

               order Éditions Jacob to pay the costs of both instances.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant puts forward three grounds in support of its appeal.
   By its first ground of appeal, the Commission submits that the General Court erred in law in that it failed to examine the consequences of the possible lack of independence of the trustee vis-à-vis Editis in respect of the trustee's duties in relation to Wendel. In the appellant's submission, the lack of independence of a person responsible for assessing a candidate is of no legal significance unless it is established that that person took account in his assessment of an interest other than that of the proper exercise of his duties.
   By its second ground of appeal, the appellant alleges that the General Court erred in law and misinterpreted the facts in so far as it found that the trustee's report had a decisive influence on the contested decision, whereas, in actual fact, even if the Commission is required to take it into account, it is not bound by the trustee's opinion and is still required to undertake the necessary investigation in order to ascertain that the purchaser does indeed satisfy the approval criteria.
   By its third ground of appeal, which is in two parts, the Commission alleges, first, a misinterpretation of the law as regards the relevance of the plea raised by the applicant at first instance on the validity of the contested decision and, second, an infringement of the obligation to state reasons in that connection.

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 125, p. 54.


title: Case T-210/02: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 September 2006 — British Aggregates v Commission (State aid — Environmental tax on aggregates in the United Kingdom — Commission Decision not to raise objections — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Person individually concerned — Selective character — Obligation to state adequate reasons — Diligent and impartial examination)

text:
               18.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/29

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 September 2006 — British Aggregates v Commission
   (Case T-210/02) (1)

   (State aid - Environmental tax on aggregates in the United Kingdom - Commission Decision not to raise objections - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Person individually concerned - Selective character - Obligation to state adequate reasons - Diligent and impartial examination)
   (2006/C 281/48)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: British Aggregates Association (Lanark, United Kingdom) (represented by C. Pouncey, Solicitor, and L. Van Den Hende, lawyer)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities (represented by J. Flett and S. Meany, agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented initially by P. Ormond, and subsequently by T. Harris and R. Caudwell, acting as Agents, assisted initially by J. Stratford and M. Hall, Barristers, and subsequently by M. Hall)
   Re:
   Partial annulment of Commission Decision C (2002) 1478 final of 24 April 2002 on State aid file N 863/01 — United Kingdom/Aggregates Levy
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Commission;

               3.

               Orders the intervener to bear its own costs

      (1)  OJ C 219, 14.9.2002