title: Case T-496/10: Judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2013 — Bank Mellat v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               9.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2013 — Bank Mellat v Council
   (Case T-496/10) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Manifest error of assessment)
   2013/C 71/23
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Bank Mellat (Teheran, Iran) (represented initially by: S. Gadhia and S. Ashley, Solicitors, D. Anderson QC and R. Blakeley, Barrister, and subsequently by R. Blakeley, S. Zaiwalla, Solicitor, and M. Brindle QC)

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

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Boelaert and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 of 26 July 2010 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 25), Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 81), Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1), Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11), and Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1) in so far as those measures concern the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the following measures in so far as they concern Bank Mellat:

                           —

                           point 4 of Table B of Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP;

                           —

                           point 2 of Table B to the Annex to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 of 26 July 2010 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran;

                           —

                           point 4 of Table I.B in the Annex to Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 amending Decision 2010/413;

                           —

                           point 4 of Table B of Annex VIII to Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 423/2007;

                           —

                           Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413;

                           —

                           Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation No 961/2010;

                           —

                           point 4 of Table I.B of Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010;

               2.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of Bank Mellat;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.


title: Action brought on 13 March 1996 by Lars Bo Rasmussen against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-35/96)

text:
 18 . 5 . 96           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 145/9
      affords undertakings, to a certain extent, flexibility in        and the appointment of another candidate of Portuguese
      the way in which they draw up their accounts .                   nationality .
 The contested decision of the Commission infringes                    In support of his application the applicant alleges in
 Article 92 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty; the assumption as to               particular that the contested decisions are vitiated by the
 the existence of favourable treatment which distorts                  following defects :
 competition and restricts trade at the expense of the State's
 finances is founded on errors of law, alternatively manifest          — breach of the rights of the defence, inasmuch as the
 errors in the assessment of the facts of the case . In                    administration did not take into account his right to be
 considering the question whether paragraph 82 f of the                    heard before taking the abovementioned decisions,
 EStDV may afford taxpayers an advantage in respect of
 interest, the Commission applied an erroneous standard of             — inadequate statement of reasons,
 comparison . The Commission's conclusions regarding the               — misuse of powers, inasmuch as, at least in so far as
 distortion of competition and restrictions on trade are
                                                                           concerns the Portuguese candidate finally selected, the
 illogical ; they are not based on verifiable findings of fact.            Council exceeded the criteria for filling the posts at issue .
                                                                           The applicant considers in this respect that the selected
                                                                           candidate does not possess the requisite experience,
                                                                      — misuse of powers , inasmuch as the appointment of the
                                                                           higher ranking officials of the Office for Harmonization
 Action brought on 11 March 1996 by José Gomes de Sa                       in the Internal Market, including the members of the
     Pereira against the Council of the European Union                     Boards of Appeal , was made in the context of a political
                         ( Case T-30/96 )                                  compromise .
                           ( 96/C 145/ 18 )
               (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                                                                      Action brought on 13 March 1996 by Lars Bo Rasmussen
An action against the Council of the European Union was                 against the Commission of the European Communities
 brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
 Communities on 11 March 1996 by José de Sa Pereira,                                              ( Case T-35 /96 )
residing at S. Joâo de Ver, represented by Augusto Cardoso,                                         ( 96/C 145/ 19 )
of the Oporto Bar, with an address for service at his
Chambers, 16-1 Dt° Rua Jornal Correio da Feira , P-4520                               (Language of tbe case: Frencb)
Santa Maria da Feira .
                                                                      An action against the Commission of the European
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                      Instance of the European Communities on 13 March 1996
— annul the three decisions adopted by the Council of the             by Lars Bo Rasmussen, residing at Dalheim ( Grand Duchy
     European Union on 25 October 1 995 appointing the                of Luxembourg ), represented by Carlo Revoldini, of the
     two presidents and the members of the Boards of Appeal           Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in
     of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal                  Luxembourg at his Chambers, 180 , Route de Longwy .
     Market,
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should :
— in the alternative, annul the decision appointing the
     members of the First Board of Appeal in its entirety or, if      annul :
     appropriate, in so far as concerns Dr Luis Manuel
     Chaves Fonseca Ferrâo,                                           — the Commission's decision cancelling the procedure
                                                                           under vacancy notice COM/ 116/94 in accordance with
— order the Council of the European Union to pay the                       Article 29 ( 1 ) ( a ) of the Staff Regulations,
     costs ,
                                                                      and, in so far as may be necessary,
— order the Council of the European Union to compensate
     the applicant for the damage caused to him by the                — the Commission's decision to reserve the post forming
     contested decisions in an amount to be decided by the                the subject-matter of vacancy notice COM/ 1 16/94 for a
     Court .                                                              national of a new Member State and to publish notice of
                                                                          open competition COM/A/929 ( Head of Unit V/F/3 ) in
                                                                          the C Series of the Official Journal of 1 June 1995 ,
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                      — the Commission's response, adopted on 14 December
The applicant, a Portuguese national, applied for the post of              1995 , rejecting the applicant's complaint of 14 July
member of one of the Boards of Appeal of the Office for                    1995 ;
Harmonization in the Internal Market. He challenges the
rejection of his candidature for the abovementioned post              order the defendant :
 ---pagebreak--- No C 145/ 10          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        18 . 5 . 96
— to pay compensation for the non-material damage                        reserving a post allocated to a Directorate-General to
    suffered, in the sum of Lfrs 300 000 or such other sum as            which a national of one of the new Member States could
    the Court may consider fair and reasonable,                          have been assigned.
— to pay the costs .                                                     Lastly, the applicant pleads misuse of powers in the
                                                                         present case .
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant, a grade A 5 official in the Commission's
Directorate-General for Employment, Industrial Relations
and Social Affairs, contests the withdrawal by the
appointing authority of that institution of the measures             Action brought on 14 March 1996 by Giuliana Gaspari
taken to organize the procedure in respect of vacancy notice                         against the European Parliament
COM/116/94 with a view to filling the post of Head of the                                     ( Case T-36/96 )
Health Promotion and Disease Surveillance Unit, and the                                         ( 96/C 145/20 )
decision to fill that post by means of an open competition
and to reserve it for a national of one of the new Member
States .                                                                              (Language of the case: French)
In support of his case, the applicant pleads ;                       An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                     Instance of the European Communities on 14 March 1 996
— breach of general legal principles, in particular the              by Giuliana Gaspari, residing at Sandweiler ( Luxembourg ),
    principles of equality of treatment and the protection of        represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Thierry Demaseure and
    legitimate expectations . He considers in that regard that       Ariane Tornel , of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
    the appointing authority did not include in the text of the      service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
    vacancy notice any qualification to the effect that, if the      SARL, 1 , rue Glesener.
    Commission were to decide, after publication of the
    notice, to reserve the post for a national of one of the
    new Member States, in accordance with a procedure yet            The applicant claims that the Court should :
    to be adopted by the Chamber, the notice could be
    regarded as wholly ineffective in law,                           — annul the decision treating the applicant's absence on
                                                                         5 May 1995 as irregular and deducting it from her
— infringement of Articles 4, 5 , 27 and 29 of the Staff                 annual leave,
    Regulations . He points out in that regard that, while the
    appointing authority is not bound to act on a                    — order the defendant to pay the costs .
    recruitment procedure undertaken pursuant to
    Article 29 of the Staff Regulations, it is nevertheless          Pleas in law and main arguments
    supposed to observe the general principles of law and,
    consequently, that it should have pursued the procedure          The applicant states that on 3 May 1995 her attending
    before initiating a different procedure which, moreover,         medical practitioner issued a certificate of incapacity for
    excluded the participation of the applicant.                     work in respect of the period from 3 to 5 May 1995
                                                                     inclusive. On 4 May the defendant required her to undergo a
    In addition, the Regulation introducing special measures         medical examination arranged by it pursuant to Article
    applicable to the recruitment of officials as a result of the    59 ( 1 ) of the Staff Regulations of officials . At the end of that
    accession of new Member States entered into force on a           examination, the institution's doctor informed her that he
    date subsequent to the publication of vacancy notice             considered her fit to take up her duties again the following
    COM/116/94 and, since it was not given retroactive               day, Friday 5 May . The applicant went back to work on
    effect, it cannot affect the situation as governed by the        8 May. By note of 22 May 1995 the head of the Parliament's
    said vacancy notice .                                            Personnel Division informed the applicant of the decision to
                                                                     treat her absence on 5 May as irregular and to deduct that
    Furthermore, Article 27 of the Staff Regulations refers          absence, in accordance with Article 60 of the Staff
    not to functions but to posts . In consequence, the              Regulations, from her annual leave .
    Commission is supposed to secure a balanced
    geographical representation not among persons within             In opposition to that decision, the applicant pleads, first,
    the organization plan of a Directorate-General but               breach of the obligation to provide a statement of reasons,
    among all posts provided for in the list of posts . It           arguing that the defendant did not state the medical reasons
    follows that the defendant institution could have                why the examining doctor decided to regard the absence on
    observed the principle of recruitment on the broadest            5 May as irregular, thereby precluding any examination of
    possible geographical basis, in particular as regards the        the merits of the contested decision .
    new Member States, while at the same time having
    regard to the general principles of equality of treatment        In addition, the applicant considers that the decision
    and the protection of legitimate expectations, by                disregarded Articles 59 and 60 of the Staff Regulations . She


title: Case T-361/10 P: Appeal brought on 25 August 2010 by the European Commission against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 15 June 2010 in Case F-35/08 Pachtitis v Commission

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/33

         Appeal brought on 25 August 2010 by the European Commission against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 15 June 2010 in Case F-35/08 Pachtitis v Commission
   (Case T-361/10 P)
   ()
   2010/C 301/57
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by J. Currall and I. Khatzigiannis)

      Other party to the proceedings: Dimitrios Pachtitis (Athens, Greece), supported by the European Data Protection Supervisor

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 15 June 2010 in Case F-35/08 Pachtitis v Commission;

               —

               refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal for examination of the other pleas in support of annulment;

               —

               order the respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the above appeal, the appellant asks the General Court to set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 15 June 2010 in Case F-35/08 Pachtitis v Commission annulling the decisions of the European Personnel Selection Office of 31 May 2007 and 6 December 2007 whereby Dimitrios Pachtitis was excluded from the list of the 110 candidates who obtained the highest marks in the pre-selection tests of the open competition EPSO/AD/77/06, and ordering the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Mr Pachtitis.
   In support of its appeal, the Commission relies on the following pleas in law:

               —

               infringement of Articles 1, 5 and 7 of Annex ΙΙΙ to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities;

               —

               infringement of Community law, and in particular Article 2 of Decision 2002/620/ΕC (1) and Article 1 of Decision 2002/621/ΕC, (2) on the establishment of the European Personnel Selection Office;

               —

               infringement of the obligation to state reasons for decisions.

      (1)  Decision 2002/620/ΕC of the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission, the Court of Justice, the Court of Auditors, the Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions and the European Ombudsman of 25 July 2002 establishing a European Communities Personnel Selection Office — Declaration by the Bureau of the European Parliament, OJ 2002 L 197 p. 53

      (2)  Decision 2002/621/ΕC of the Secretaries-General of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, the Registrar of the Court of Justice, the Secretaries-General of the Court of Auditors, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, and the Representative of the European Ombudsman of 25 July 2002 on the organisation and operation of the European Communities Personnel Selection Office, OJ 2002 L 197 p. 56


title: Case C-72/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Mohsen Afrasiabi, Behzad Sahabi, Heinz Ulrich Kessel (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran to prevent nuclear proliferation — Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 — Article 7(3) and (4) — Supply and installation of a sintering furnace in Iran — Concept of ‘indirectly making available’ an ‘economic resource’ to persons, entities and bodies listed in Annexes IV and V to that regulation — Concept of ‘circumvention’ of the prohibition on making that resource available)

text:
               18.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 49/13

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Mohsen Afrasiabi, Behzad Sahabi, Heinz Ulrich Kessel
   (Case C-72/11) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran to prevent nuclear proliferation - Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 - Article 7(3) and (4) - Supply and installation of a sintering furnace in Iran - Concept of ‘indirectly making available’ an ‘economic resource’ to persons, entities and bodies listed in Annexes IV and V to that regulation - Concept of ‘circumvention’ of the prohibition on making that resource available)
   2012/C 49/21
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties in the main proceedings

   Mohsen Afrasiabi, Behzad Sahabi, Heinz Ulrich Kessel

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Interpretation of Article 7(3) and (4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 of 19 April 2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2007 L 103, p. 1) — Delivery of equipment referred to in Annex II of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 in an unusable condition to an Iranian legal person not referred to in Annexes IV and V of that regulation — Equipment allegedly intended for later production for an entity referred to in those two annexes — Scope of the prohibition on making available economic resources to the persons listed in Annexes IV and V of the aforesaid regulation — Concept of ‘making available indirectly’ — Simultaneous application of the provisions prohibiting the making available of economic resources, on the one hand, and the contravention of the latter prohibition, on the other hand

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 7(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 of 19 April 2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran must be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition on indirectly making available an economic resource, within the meaning of Article 1(i) of that regulation, encompasses acts relating to the supply and installation in Iran of a sintering furnace in working condition but not yet ready to use for the benefit of a third party which, acting on behalf, under the control or on the instructions of a person, an entity or a body listed in Annexes IV and V to that regulation, intends to use that furnace to manufacture, for the benefit of such a person, entity or body, goods capable of contributing to nuclear proliferation in that State;

               2.

               Article 7(4) of Regulation No 423/2007 must be interpreted as meaning that:

                           —

                           it covers activities which, under cover of a formal appearance which enables them to avoid the constituent elements of an infringement of Article 7(3) of the regulation, none the less have the object or effect, direct or indirect, of frustrating the prohibition laid down in that provision;

                           —

                           the terms ‘knowingly’ and ‘intentionally’ imply cumulative requirements of knowledge and intent, which are met where the person participating in an activity having such an object or such an effect deliberately seeks that object or effect or is at least aware that his participation may have that object or that effect and he accepts that possibility.

      (1)  OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.


title: Case T-398/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of  5 May 2006  — Tesoka v EUROFOUND (Referral to the Civil Service Tribunal)

text:
               15.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/26

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 5 May 2006 — Tesoka v EUROFOUND
   (Case T-398/05) (1)

   (Referral to the Civil Service Tribunal)
   (2006/C 165/52)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Sabrina Tesoka (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by: J.-L. Fagnart, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (EUROFOUND) (represented by: C. Callanan, lawyer)
   Re:
   Action under Article 236 EC
   Operative part of the order
   Case T-398/05 is referred to the Civil Service Tribunal.

      (1)  OJ C 10, 14.1.2006.


title: Case C-387/99: Action brought on 8 October 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
C 366/20                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     18.12.1999
Must Article 119 of the EC Treaty [Articles 117 to 120 of the             Pleas in law and main arguments
Treaty have been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC] be
interpreted to mean that pension funds must be considered to              The third paragraph of Article 249 EC requires each Member
be employers and are obliged to treat men and women equally               State to which a directive is addressed to transpose the
as regards payments of occupational old-age pensions, even                provisions thereof into national law within the time-limit
though disadvantaged employees have a claim, which is                     prescribed for that purpose, in such a way as to give full effect
protected in the event of insolvency and therefore precludes              thereto. The time-limit laid down in Article 3 of the directive
discrimination, against the body directly responsible for pro-            expired on 31 May 1998, but Germany has not adopted the
vision of a pension, that is to say their employer as a party to          necessary measures in that regard.
the employment contract.
                                                                          (1) OJ L 265 of 18.10.1996, p. 17.
                                                                          Action brought on 8 October 1999 by the Commission
                                                                          of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-
                                                                                lic of Germany
Action brought on 8 October 1999 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-                                             (Case C-387/99)
                            lic of Germany
                                                                                (1999/C 366/33)
                           (Case C-386/99)
                                                                          An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                                                                          brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                          (1999/C 366/32)                                 ties on 8 October 1999 by the Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities, represented by Claudia Schmidt, of its Legal
                                                                          Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                     Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-              Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.
ties on 8 October 1999 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Claudia Schmidt, of its Legal                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its              (1) declare that, by classifying as medicinal products vitamin
Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.                                 and mineral nutrient preparations which have been law-
                                                                               fully produced and/or placed on the market as food
                                                                               supplements in other Member States, where the daily dose
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    of such vitamins and minerals is more than three times
                                                                               that recommended by the German Gesellschaft für Ernäh-
                                                                               rung, the Federal Republic of Germany has infringed its
(1) declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and                obligations under Article 28 EC;
     administrative measures necessary in order to comply with
     Commission Directive 96/65/EC (1) of 11 October 1996                 (2) order the defendant to pay the costs.
     adapting to technical progress for the fourth time Council,
     Directive 88/379/EEC on the approximation of the laws,
     regulations and administrative provisions of the Member              Pleas in law and main arguments
     States relating to the classification, packaging and labelling
     of dangerous preparations and modifying Directive                    Infringement of Article 28 EC: the obstacle to trade resulting
     91/442/EEC on dangerous preparations the packaging of                from the practice followed by the German administrative
     which must be fitted with child-resistant fastenings, the            authorities and courts cannot be justified on grounds of public
     Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its                 health or consumer protection, since that practice is not in
     obligations under the third paragraph of Article 249 EC in           accordance with the principle of proportionality. It is an
     conjunction with Article 3(1) of that directive;                     established scientific fact that the threshold at which increasing
                                                                          doses of vitamins become harmful is not reached at the same
                                                                          rate in the case of all vitamins. Consequently, to regard all
(2) alternatively, declare that the Federal Republic of Germany           vitamins in global/abstract terms, in such a way as necessarily
     has failed to fulfil its obligation to notify the Commission         to apply the strictest criterion, is to go beyond what is
     without delay of the measures taken to transpose the                 necessary and permissible in order to achieve the goal of health
     directive;                                                           protection under Community law; it is disproportionate.
(3) order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.


title: Case T-600/15: Order of the General Court of 28 September 2016 — PAN Europe and Others v European Commission (Actions for annulment — Plant-protection products — Active substance sulfoxaflor — Inclusion in the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               21.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 428/16

         Order of the General Court of 28 September 2016 — PAN Europe and Others v European Commission
   (Case T-600/15) (1)

   ((Actions for annulment - Plant-protection products - Active substance sulfoxaflor - Inclusion in the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility))
   (2016/C 428/18)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) (Brussels, Belgium), Bee Life European Beekeeping Coordination (Bee Life) (Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium), Unione nazionale associazioni apicoltori italiani (Unaapi) (Castel San Pietro Terme, Italy) (represented by: B. Kloostra and A. van den Biesen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Pignataro-Nolin, G. von Rintelen and P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1295 of 27 July 2015, approving the active substance sulfoxaflor, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (OJ 2015 L 199, p. 8).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene from the European Crop Protection Association (ECPA), Dow AgroSciences Ltd and Dow AgroSciences Iberica SA.

               3.

               Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe), Bee Life European Beekeeping Coordination (Bee Life) and Unione nazionale associazioni apicoltori italiani (Unaapi) shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

               4.

               PAN Europe, Bee Life, Unaapi, the Commission, ECPA, Dow AgroSciences and Dow AgroSciences Iberica shall each bear their own costs in relation to the applications to intervene.

      (1)  OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.


title: Case F-40/14: Action brought on 30 April 2014  — ZZ v Commission

text:
               1.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 292/60

         Action brought on 30 April 2014 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-40/14)
   2014/C 292/78
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision to increase the applicant’s pension rights in the European Union pension scheme by application of the new General Implementing Provisions of Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare Article 9 of the General Implementing Provisions of 3 March 2011 of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials inapplicable;

               —

               Annul the decisions of 30 September 2013 and 9 December 2013 to increase the pension rights acquired by the applicant before his entry into service, on their transfer into the EU institutions’ pension scheme, by application of the General Implementing Provisions of 3 March 2011 of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-45/05: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 May 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands)) — Maatschap Schonewille-Prins v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit (Agricultural structures — Community aid schemes — Beef and veal sector — Identification and registration of bovine animals — Slaughter premium — Exclusion and reduction)

text:
               7.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/2

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 May 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands)) — Maatschap Schonewille-Prins v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit
   (Case C-45/05) (1)

   (Agricultural structures - Community aid schemes - Beef and veal sector - Identification and registration of bovine animals - Slaughter premium - Exclusion and reduction)
   (2007/C 155/02)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Maatschap Schonewille-Prins

      Defendant: Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Interpretation of Article 21 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 21) and of Articles 44, 45 and 47(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 of 11 December 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 (OJ 2001 L 327, p. 11) — Interpretation of Article 11 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 of 23 December 1992 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes (OJ 1992 L 391, p. 36) and of Article 22 of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 July 2000 establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97 (OJ 2000 L 204, p. 1) — Slaughter premium — Compliance with Regulation No 1760/2000 — Community exclusions and reductions — Application to national exclusions and reductions — Corrections and additions made to the information on the computerised database
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 21 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal must be interpreted as meaning that the failure to comply with the period for notification to the computerised database of the movement of a bovine animal to or from a holding, laid down in the second indent of Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 July 2000 establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97, renders that bovine animal ineligible for a slaughter premium and, consequently, results in the exclusion of that premium for that animal.

               2.

               Consideration of the second question referred has revealed nothing capable of casting doubt on the validity of Article 21 of Regulation No 1254/1999 in the light of the principle of proportionality, in so far as that article renders a bovine animal in respect of which there has been a failure to comply with the notification period set out in Article 7(1), second indent, of Regulation No 1760/2000 ineligible for a slaughter premium and consequently results in the exclusion of that premium for that animal.

               3.

               Articles 44 and 45 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 of 11 December 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 do not apply to the exclusion of a slaughter premium for a bovine animal in respect of which the information regarding its movement to or from a holding was not notified to the computerised database within the period laid down in Article 7(1), second indent, of Regulation No 1760/2000, so as to render that bovine animal eligible for a slaughter premium, even in the case where that information sent to the database in question after the expiry of the prescribed period was correct.

               4.

               Article 11 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 of 23 December 1992 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes and/or Article 22 of Regulation No 1760/2000 must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State cannot lay down national penalties consisting in reductions and exclusions from the total amount of Community aid which can be claimed by a farmer who has applied for a slaughter premium, since penalties of that type are already set out in detail in Regulation No 3887/92.

      (1)  OJ C 93, 16.4.2005.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 7 November 1996 in Case T-298/94: Roquette Frères SA v. Council of the European Union (Common agricultural policy - Quota system in relation to the production of potato starch - Regulation (EC) No 1868/94 - Action for annulment - Closed group of traders - Inadmissibility)

text:
No C 370/ 12         [ EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    7 . 12 . 96
Thomas Sharpe QC, of the Bar of England and Wales,                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
instructed by Alexandre R. M. Nourry, Solicitor, with an                                     of 5 November 1996
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jean
Hoss, 15 Cote d'Eich, supported by the United Kingdom of            in Joined Cases T-21 /95 and T-186/95 : Marco Mazzocchi
Great Britain and Northern Ireland ( Agents : Lindsey Nicoll,        Alemanni v. Commission of the European Communities ( 1 )
Stephanie Ridley, K. P. E. Lasok and Kenneth Parker ) and           (Officials — Supplementary sickness insurance scheme for
by Channel Tunnel Group Ltd, established in London, and             officials serving in a third country — Procedure for
France Manche SA, established in Paris, together                    reimbursement of medical expenses — Application of
constituting Eurotunnel, whose head office is in London,                                             ceilings)
represented by Christine Heron Schwaighofer and Christian
Roth, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in                                           ( 96/C 370/27 )
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand
Rue, British Railways Board being supported also by
European Passenger Services Ltd, established in London,                              (Language of the case: French)
represented by Thomas Sharpe QC, of the Bar of England
and Wales, instructed by Alexandre R. M. Nourry, Solicitor,         In Joined Cases T-21 /95 and T-186/95 : Marco Mazzocchi
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers           Alemanni, an official of the Commission of the European
of Jean Hoss, 15 Cote d'Eich, against the Commission of             Communities, residing in Libreville ( Gabon ), represented
the European Communities (Agents: Francisco Enrique                 by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
Gonzalez Diaz, Carmel O'Reilly and Guy Charrier ) —                 service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
applications for the annulment of Commission Decision 94/           Sari, 1 Rue Glesener, v. Commission of the European
894/EC of 13 December 1994 relating to a proceeding                 Communities ( Agent: Julian Currall ) — application for
under Article 85 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA         annulment of the decision of the Commission refusing the
Agreement ( IV/32.490 — Eurotunnel ) ( OJ No L 354 ,                applicant full reimbursement of certain dental expenses —
31 . 12 . 1994, p. 66 ) and, in the alternative, for the            the Court of First Instance ( Third Chamber ), composed of:
annulment of the conditions laid down in Article 2 ( A ) of         C. P. Briët, President, and B. Vesterdorf and A. Potocki,
that decision — the Court of First Instance ( Third Chamber,        Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
Extended Composition ), composed of C. P. Briët, President,         has given a judgment on 5 November 1996 , in which it:
and B. Vesterdorf, P. Lindh, A. Potocki and J. D. Cooke,
Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 October 1996 , in              1 . dismisses the action in Case T-21 /95 as inadmissible;
which it ruled as follows :
                                                                    2.    dismisses the action in Case T-l 86/95 as inadmissible in
                                                                          so far as it requests the Court to issue directions or
                                                                          make declarations;
 1 . Cases T-79/95 and T-80/95 are joined for the purposes
     of the judgment.
                                                                     3 . dismisses the remainder of the action as unfounded;
                                                                    4 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.
 2 . Commission Decision 94/894/EC of 13 December 1994
     relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC             (!) OJ No C 87, 8 . 4 . 1995 , and
     Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (IV/                     OJ No C 299 , 11 . 11 . 1995 .
     32.490 — Eurotunnel) is annulled.
 3 . The Commission shall bear its own costs together with
     those of the applicants, including the costs relating to           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     the applications for interim measures. It shall also bear                               of 7 November 1996
     the costs of the intervener European Passenger Services
     Ltd.                                                            in Case T-298/94: Roquette Freres SA v. Council of the
                                                                                European Union ( ] )
                                                                     (Common agricultural policy — Quota system in relation
                                                                     to the production of potato starch — Regulation (EC)
 4 . The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern                No 1868/94 — Action for annulment — Closed group of
     Ireland, together with Channel Tunnel Group Ltd and                                 traders — Inadmissibility)
     France Manche SA (Eurotunnel), shall bear their own
     costs .
                                                                                ( 96/C 370/28
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
 C ) OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 .
                                                                     In Case T-298/94 : Roquette Freres SA, established at
                                                                     Lestrem ( France ), represented by Jacques Dutat, of the
 ---pagebreak--- 7 . 12 . 96             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 370 / 13
Lille Bar, against Council of the European Union ( Agents:             1 . the action is dismissed as inadmissible;
Arthur Brautigam and Jan-Peter Hix), supported by
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: Gerard                  2 . the applicant is ordered to pay all the costs.
Rozet) — application for annulment of Council Regulation
( EC ) No 1868/94 of 27 July 1994 establishing a quota                 (') OJ No C 133 , 4 . 5 . 1996 .
system in relation to the production of potato starch ( OJ
No L 197, 30 . 7. 1994, p. 4 ) — the Court of First Instance
( Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President, and
P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
7 November 1996, in which it:                                                         ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
                                                                                OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
1 . dismisses the application as inadmissible;                                                  of 21 October 1996
                                                                       in Case T-107/96 R: Pantochim SA v. Commission of the
2 . orders the applicant to pay its own costs and those of                                   European Communities
     the Council;
                                                                       (State aid — Administrative procedure pending —
3.   orders the Commission to bear its own costs.                      Application for an injunction requiring the Commission to
                                                                       direct a Member State to modify the conditions for the
(!) OJ No C 331 , 26 . 11 . 1994 .
                                                                       grant of aid — Injunction involving a measure beyond the
                                                                           Commission 's powers — Dismissal of the application)
                                                                                ( 96/C 370/30 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        of 25 October 1996                             In Case T-107/96 R : Pantochim SA, established at Feluy
                                                                       ( Belgium ), represented by Jacques H. J. Bourgeois, of the
in Case T-26/96: Orlando Lopes v. Court of Justice of the              Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                  European Communities (^                              the Chambers of Marc Loesch, 11              rue Goethe, v.
(Officials — Action for annulment of measures — Act                    Commission of the European Communities ( Agents : Gerard
adversely affecting an official — Action for damages —                 Rozet and Herve Lehman ) — application for an interim
                             Inadmissible)                             measure requiring the Commission to direct France , in a
                                                                       procedure pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 93 ( 2 )
                            ( 96/C 370/29 )
                                                                       of the EC Treaty, to grant the applicant provisional
                                                                       exemption from duty on biodiesel for a quantity of 20 000
                (Language of the case: French)                         tonnes a year — the President of the Court of First Instance
                                                                       has made an order on 21 October 1996 , the operative part
In Case T-26/96 : Orlando Lopes, an official of the Court of           of which is as follows :
Justice of the European Communities, residing in
Luxembourg, represented by Marc Kleyr, of the                          1 . The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at his Chambers, 17 Rue Louvigny, v. Court                  1.   Costs are reserved.
of Justice of the European Communities (Agents: Timothy
Millett and Aloyse May ) — application for annulment of a
memorandum of the Head of the Portuguese Translation
Division of the Court of Justice of 21 January 1994 and of a
document entitled 'Analysis of sample I' dated 29 June
 1995 , both of which documents were submitted by the                                 ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
defendant in response to written questions put by the Court                      OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
of First Instance in Joined Cases T-547/93 and T-280/94                                         of 14 October 1996
Lopes v. Court of Justice; annulment of the decision of the
Registrar of the Court of Justice, communicated by                     in Case T-l 3 7/96 R: Valio Oy v. Commission of the
memorandum of 21 July 1995 , not to act on the applicant's                                   European Communities
request, submitted on 7 July 1995, seeking the cessation of             (Application for interim measures — Admissibility —
the alleged misuse of powers or authority; annulment of the             Common agricultural policy — Standards for spreadable
decision of the Court's complaints committee of 22 January             fats — Prohibition of the use of reserved sales descriptions
 1996 rejecting the complaint submitted by the applicant on            — Application — Division of powers between the
 3 October 1995 ; and compensation for the material and                           Commission and the national authorities)
non-material damage which the applicant claims to have
suffered as a result of the conduct of the servants of the                                          ( 96/C 370/31 )
 Court of Justice — the Court of First Instance ( Second
 Chamber), composed of C. W. Bellamy, President, and H.                                (Language of the case: English)
Kirschner and A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; H. Jung,
 Registrar, made an order on 25 October 1996, the operative            In Case T-l 37/96 R: Valio Oy, established at Helsinki,
part of which is as follows :                                           represented by Francis Herbert and Daniel M. Tomasevic,


title: Case C-201/13: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel — Belgium) — Johan Deckmyn, Vrijheidsfonds VZW v Helena Vandersteen and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2001/29/EC — Copyright and related rights — Reproduction right — Exceptions and limitations — Concept of ‘parody’ — Autonomous concept of EU law)

text:
               19.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/3

      Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel — Belgium) — Johan Deckmyn, Vrijheidsfonds VZW v Helena Vandersteen and Others
      (Case C-201/13) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2001/29/EC - Copyright and related rights - Reproduction right - Exceptions and limitations - Concept of ‘parody’ - Autonomous concept of EU law)
      (2015/C 016/04)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Hof van beroep te Brussel

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Johan Deckmyn, Vrijheidsfonds VZW

         Defendants: Helena Vandersteen, Christiane Vandersteen, Liliana Vandersteen, Isabelle Vandersteen, Rita Dupont, Amoras II CVOH, WPG Uitgevers België

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 5(3)(k) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘parody’ appearing in that provision is an autonomous concept of EU law.

                  2.

                  Article 5(3)(k) of Directive 2001/29 must be interpreted as meaning that the essential characteristics of parody, are, first, to evoke an existing work, while being noticeably different from it, and secondly, to constitute an expression of humour or mockery. The concept of ‘parody’, within the meaning of that provision, is not subject to the conditions that the parody should display an original character of its own, other than that of displaying noticeable differences with respect to the original parodied work; that it could reasonably be attributed to a person other than the author of the original work itself; that it should relate to the original work itself or mention the source of the parodied work.
                  However, the application, in a particular case, of the exception for parody, within the meaning of Article 5(3)(k) of Directive 2001/29, must strike a fair balance between, on the one hand, the interests and rights of persons referred to in Articles 2 and 3 of that directive, and, on the other, the freedom of expression of the user of a protected work who is relying on the exception for parody, within the meaning of Article 5(3)(k).
                  It is for the national court to determine, in the light of all the circumstances of the case in the main proceedings, whether the application of the exception for parody, within the meaning of Article 5(3)(k) of Directive 2001/29, on the assumption that the drawing at issue fulfils the essential requirements of parody, preserves that fair balance.

         (1)  OJ C 189, 29.6.2013.


title: Case T-217/99: Action brought on 30 September 1999 by Sinaga, Sociedade de Indústrias Agrícolas Açoreanas, SA, against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 333/36               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    20.11.1999
— as regards competition COM/R/5179/98, both the appli-                  by Sinaga, Sociedade de Indústrias Agrı́colas Açoreanas, SA,
    cant’s curriculum vitae and the annex to his written                 whose registered office is at 75 Rua de Lisboa, Ponta Delgada,
    application in the competition procedure show that he has            Azores, represented by Dr Mário Marques Mendes and by Dr
    14 years’ experience at European lever in the field of               Maria Luı́sa Duarte, with an address for service in Luxembourg
    new products and computer services. Moreover, he has                 at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 21 Grand-Rue, Luxembourg.
    management experience and, in particular, experience of
    the supervision of outside contracts;                                The action seeks the annulment of the annex to Commission
                                                                         Regulation (EC) No 1434/99 of 30 June 1999 in so far as it
— as regards competition COM/R/5182/98, the Commission                   establishes the sugar forecast supply balance for the Azores
    has committed a manifest error of assessment in consider-            and hold that earlier legislation continues to produce its effects.
    ing him to have had no experience in the field of contract
    management, in particular the management of contracts                The applicant claims that the Court should:
    for the provision of telematic network services;
                                                                         — find the application admissible;
— as regards competition COM/R/5183/98, the applicant
    has shown that he possesses over five years’ practical               — annul the annex to Commission Regulation (EC)
    experience in the evaluation of research and technological               No 1434/99 of 30 June 1999 in so far as it establishes the
    development programmes and projects;                                     sugar forecast supply balance for the Azores and hold that
                                                                             earlier legislation continues to produce its effects;
— as regards competition COM/R/5188/98, the competition
    notice does not state, as it should have done, that                  — order the Commission of the European Communities to
    candidates are required to possess professional experience               pay the costs.
    in those matters;
— as regards competition COM/R/5190/98, the applicant has                Pleas in law and main arguments
    proved that he possesses over 17 years’ experience in the
    fields prescribed.                                                   Infringement of Article 190 of the EC Treaty (now Article 253
                                                                         EC): manifestly inadequate and inconsistent statement of
                                                                         reasons
                                                                         Infringement of Articles 2, 3, and 8 of Council Regulation
                                                                         (EEC) No 1600/92 of 15 June 1992: the forecast supply
                                                                         balance does not take into account traditional trace flows
Action brought on 30 September 1999 by Sinaga, Socied-
ade de Indústrias Agrı́colas Açoreanas, SA, against the                 Infringement of Article 227 of the EC Treaty (now, after
         Commission of the European Communities                          amendment, Article 299 EC): failure to take account of the
                                                                         said provision when interpreting and applying legislative
                        (Case T-217/99)                                  provisions applicable to the extremely remote areas
                        (1999/C 333/79)                                  Infringement of Article 4(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 7(1)
                                                                         EC): the Commission has exercised its executive powers in a
                                                                         manifestly abusive and unlawful manner
                 (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                                                                         Breach of the principle of proportionality: the effects of the
An action against was brought before the Court of First                  forecast made in Regulation (EC) No 1434/99 are unfair and
Instance of the European Communities on 30 September 1999                unreasonable.


title: Case C-100/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte (Italy) lodged on 24 February 2012 — Fastweb SpA v Azienda Sanitaria Locale di Alessandria

text:
               26.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte (Italy) lodged on 24 February 2012 — Fastweb SpA v Azienda Sanitaria Locale di Alessandria
   (Case C-100/12)
   2012/C 151/25
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Fastweb SpA

      Defendant: Azienda Sanitaria Locale di Alessandria

      Other parties: Telecom Italia SpA, Path-net SpA

      Question referred

   Do the principles of equality of the parties, of non-discrimination and of protection of competition in public tendering procedures referred to in Directive 89/665/EEC, (1) as … amended by Directive 2007/66/EC, (2) preclude the most recent case-law (the ‘diritto vivente’) as laid down in Decision No 4 of [7 April] 2011 of the Plenary Assembly of the Consiglio di Stato, according to which the cross action, which seeks to challenge recognition of the legitimacy of the applicant in the main action by contesting its admission to the tendering procedure, must of necessity be heard before the main action and carry compelling implications for examination of the main action, even in cases where the applicant in the main action has an interest in the recommencement of the entire selection procedure (interesse strumentale) and irrespective of the number of competitors which took part in the procedure, with specific reference to cases where only two participants remained in play in that procedure (namely, the applicant in the main action and the applicant in the cross-action, the latter being also the successful tenderer), each seeking to have the other excluded on the grounds that its tender failed to meet the minimum requirements for the tender to be considered suitable?

      (1)  OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33.

      (2)  OJ 2007 L 335, p. 31.


title: Case T-296/14: Action brought on 2 May 2014  — Erbslöh v Commission

text:
               14.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/45

         Action brought on 2 May 2014 — Erbslöh v Commission
   (Case T-296/14)
   2014/C 223/48
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Erbslöh AG (Velbert, Germany) (represented by: T. Volz, M. Ringel, B. Wißmann, M. Püstow, C. Oehme and T. Wielsch, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission of 18 December 2013 to open the formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU against the Federal Republic of Germany regarding the support for renewable electricity and the reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users, State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN), in so far as it applies to the reduction of the EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users;

               —

               order the defendant 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: No advantage within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU

                           —

                           The applicant claims that the reduction of the EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users, provided for in the Gesetz für den Vorrang erneuerbarer Energien (Law for the priority of renewable energy sources, hereinafter referred to as EEG), does not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. In this context, the applicant states that energy-intensive users are not favoured by the arrangement. The special compensation regime is, instead, compensation for exceptional costs which affect the applicant and comparable users to a special degree in the context of the support for renewable electricity, and is intended to re-establish the competitiveness of energy-intensive users who were initially considerably adversely affected by the EEG-surcharge.

               2.

               Second plea in law: No State resources within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU

                           —

                           In addition, the applicant claims that the special compensation regime does not constitute a measure granted ‘by a Member State or through State resources’. The applicant states, in this context, that the EEG-surcharge is not a State resource and that even a waiver of those resources by the special compensation regime cannot therefore constitute a measure granted through State resources.

                           —

                           The EEG-surcharge is not collected, administered or even allocated by the State or by a public or private institution nominated or established by the State. Instead, the EEG-surcharge can be directly collected by the transmission system operators on the basis of a corresponding entitlement under civil law. The EEG-surcharge does not benefit the State budget, and consequently the special compensation regime in no way indirectly or directly reduces State revenue.

                           —

                           The EEG-resources are also not available to State authorities. There is also no public control over the EEG-resources, such as by the Bundesamt für Wirtschaft und Ausfuhrkontrolle (Federal Office of Economics and Export Control, BAFA) or the Bundesnetzagentur (Federal Network Agency).


title: Case C-576/08: Order of the President of the Court of 3 June 2009 — People's Mojahedin Organisation of Iran v Council of the European Union, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Commission of the European Communities, Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/30

         Order of the President of the Court of 3 June 2009 — People's Mojahedin Organisation of Iran v Council of the European Union, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Commission of the European Communities, Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-576/08) (1)

   2009/C 205/53

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2008.


title: Case T-14/99: Action brought on 19 January 1999 by Marie-Jeanne Kraus against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
10.4.1999            EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                C 100/19
Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 February 1999, in           committed its error without her having at any time been
which it:                                                         aware of it; nor could she reasonably have been expected
                                                                  to have known of it.
1. Dismisses the application.
                                                                  Consequently, she pleads infringement, in the present case,
2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.                    of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations.
(1) OJ C 234, 25.7.1998.
                                                                  Action brought on 21 January 1999 by Dansk Rùrindustri
                                                                  A/S (Starpipe) against the Commission of the European
Action brought on 19 January 1999 by Marie-Jeanne                                          Communities
Kraus against the Commission of the European
                         Communities                                                      (Case T-21/99)
                       (Case T-14/99)                                                    (1999/C 100/38)
                      (1999/C 100/37)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Danish)
               (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of European                      An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                 Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 19 January                Instance of the European Communities on 21 January
1999 by Marie-Jeanne Kraus, residing in Luxembourg,               1999 by Dansk Rùrindustri A/S (Starpipe), Fredericia,
represented by Lex Thielen, of the Luxembourg Bar, with           represented by Karen Dyekjñr-Hansen and Katja Hùegh,
an address for service at his Chambers, 10 Rue Willy              of the Copenhagen Bar, with an address for service in
Goergen, Luxembourg.                                              Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-
                                                                  Rue
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
Ð annul the decisions requiring the applicant to repay
    the household allowance received by her during the
    period from November 1986 to February 1998;                   Ð annul Article 1 of Commission Decision C(1998) 3117
                                                                      of 21 October 1998 (1), to the extent to which it
                                                                      concerns the applicant, in so far as it finds that the
Ð alternatively, annul the decisions requiring the                    applicant participated in a complex of agreements and
    applicant to repay the household allowance received               concerted practices' which lasted without interruption
    by her during the period from November 1986 to                    from about November/December 1990 to at least
    October 1995;                                                     March or April 1996';
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                  Ð annul, in relation to the applicant, the final indent in
                                                                      Article 1 of the Commission Decision, which states
                                                                      that the applicant, in conjunction with the other
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   producers, in order to protect the cartel from
                                                                      competition from the only substantial non-member,
                                                                      Powerpipe AB (agreed) and (took) concerted measures
The applicant contests the appointing authority's decision            to hinder its commercial activity, damage its business
to recover the sum of LUF 793 292 allegedly paid to her               or drive it out of the market altogether';
in error by way of household allowance during the period
from her entry into service in November 1986 to February
1998.
                                                                  Ð reduce the fine imposed on Dansk Rùrindustri A/S;
The applicant denies that she was aware of the irregularity
of the payments in issue, and further denies that they were       Ð order the Commission to pay the costs of Dansk
manifestly irregular. In her view, the administration                 Rùrindustri A/S.


title: Case C-434/14: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 April 2016 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bari — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Raffaele Mignone (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Identical questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Articles 49 and 56 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Betting and gaming — National legislation — Reorganisation of the licensing system through the alignment of licence expiry dates — New call for tenders — Licences for a shorter term than that of the former licences — Transfer, free of charge, of the rights to use tangible and intangible assets owned constituting the network for the management and collection of bets — Restriction — Overriding reasons in the public interest — Proportionality)

text:
               25.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/4

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 April 2016 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bari — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Raffaele Mignone
   (Case C-434/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Identical questions referred for a preliminary ruling - Articles 49 and 56 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Betting and gaming - National legislation - Reorganisation of the licensing system through the alignment of licence expiry dates - New call for tenders - Licences for a shorter term than that of the former licences - Transfer, free of charge, of the rights to use tangible and intangible assets owned constituting the network for the management and collection of bets - Restriction - Overriding reasons in the public interest - Proportionality))
   (2016/C 270/05)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Bari

      Criminal proceedings against

   Raffaele Mignone

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU and the principles of equal treatment and effectiveness must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation on betting and gaming, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the organisation of a new call for tenders for the award of licences with a shorter period of validity than that of the licences awarded in the past on account of the reorganisation of the system through the alignment of licence expiry dates.

               2.

               Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a restrictive national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which requires a licensee of a betting and gambling service to transfer, free of charge, on the cessation of business as a result of the expiry of the final term of the licence, the rights to use tangible and intangible assets which he owns and which constitute his network for the management and collection of bets, in so far as that restriction goes beyond what is necessary to attain the objective actually pursued by that provision, which is for the referring court to verify.

      (1)  OJ C 448, 15.12.2014.


title: Case C-425/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'Etat (Belgium) lodged on 26 September 2008 — Enviro Tech (Europe) LTD v Belgian State

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'Etat (Belgium) lodged on 26 September 2008 — Enviro Tech (Europe) LTD v Belgian State
   (Case C-425/08)
   (2008/C 327/21)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Conseil d'Etat
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Enviro Tech (Europe) Ltd

      Defendant: Belgian State
   Questions referred
   Question 1:

               —

               In so far as it classifies nPB as a highly flammable substance (R11) on the basis of a single test carried out at a temperature of – 10 °C, does Directive 2004/73/EC (1) comply with Framework Directive 67/548/EEC (2), in particular with point A.9 of Annex V to that directive which lays down the methods for determining flash points?

               —

               Does Directive 2004/73/EC comply with Framework Directive 67/548/EEC, in particular with point 4.2.3 of Annex VI to that directive, in so far as it classifies nPB as a category 2 substance which is toxic for reproduction (R60), first, without clear results in appropriate animal studies where toxic effects have been observed to provide a strong presumption that human exposure to the substance may result in developmental toxicity and, secondly, on the basis of tests in which toxicity was detected only in animals subjected to a concentration of 250 ppm, that is to say 11 times the maximum and 40 times the average of the concentration of nPB to which a person is exposed when handling the product?

               —

               Does Directive 2004/73/EC comply with Framework Directive 67/548/EEC, in particular with Annexes V and VI thereto, in so far as it classifies nPB as highly flammable (R11) and as a category 2 substance which is toxic for reproduction (R60) on the basis of the precautionary principle without complying with the methods and criteria set out in Annexes V and VI to Directive 67/548/EEC?

               —

               Does Directive 2004/73/EC comply with Framework Directive 67/548/EEC in so far as it classifies nPB as highly flammable (R11) and as a category 2 substance which is toxic for reproduction (R60) on the basis of tests which are different from those carried out on competing products, inter alia chlorinated halogens, and without regard to the principle of proportionality?

         Question 2:

               —

               If Directive 2004/73/EC does not comply with Directive 67/548/EEC, should the Kingdom of Belgium have refrained from transposing into national law the classification of nPB which stems from Directive 2004/73/EC or even rejected that classification, even though under Article 2 of Directive 2004/73/EC ‘Members States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 31 October 2005 at the latest’?

      (1)  Commission Directive 2004/73/EC of 29 April 2004 adapting to technical progress for the twenty-ninth time Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (OJ 2004 L 152, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (OJ, English Special Edition 1967, p. 234).


title: Case T-521/14: Action brought on 4 July 2014 — Sweden v Commission

text:
               1.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 431/28

         Action brought on 4 July 2014 — Sweden v Commission
   (Case T-521/14)
   (2014/C 431/50)
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk and K. Sparrman, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare that the European Commission, by failing to adopt delegated acts to specify scientific criteria for the determination of endocrine-disrupting properties, has infringed Article 5(3) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs of the action.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Under Article 5(3) of the Biocides Regulation (1), the Commission is to adopt delegated acts to specify scientific criteria for the determination of endocrine-disrupting properties by 13 December 2013 at the latest. The applicant submits that, by failing to adopt such delegated acts, the Commission has failed to take measures which it is obliged by law to take. The applicant has requested the Commission to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 5(3) of the Biocides Regulation, but in the Commission’s reply, in the view of the applicant, no position was defined as regards that request within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 265 TFEU. The applicant claims that, in addition, as at the time of the application, the Commission has not adopted any measures to end the alleged failure to act. In the view of the applicant, the Commission has a basis for specifying scientific criteria for the determination of endocrine-disrupting properties and an application of those criteria which, under the second and third subparagraphs of Article 5(3) of the Biocides Regulation, are to apply until the Commission has adopted delegated acts containing criteria for endocrine-disrupting substances.

      (1)  Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products (OJ 2012 L 167, p. 1).


title: Case T-756/15: Action brought on 21 December 2015 — Tengelmann Warenhandelsgesellschaft v OHIM — Fédération Internationale des Logis (T)

text:
               15.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 59/49

         Action brought on 21 December 2015 — Tengelmann Warenhandelsgesellschaft v OHIM — Fédération Internationale des Logis (T)
   (Case T-756/15)
   (2016/C 059/56)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Tengelmann Warenhandelsgesellschaft KG (Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany) (represented by: H. Prange, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Federation Internationale des Logis (Paris, France)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘T’ — Application for registration No 11 623 022

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 August 2015 in Case R 2653/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the contested decision, and amend it to the effect that the opposition is rejected in its entirety;

               —

               order of the defendant and, as the case may be, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs of the appeal proceedings.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case C-140/09: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 June 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova (Italy)) — Fallimento Traghetti del Mediterraneo SpA v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri (State aid — Subsidies paid to a maritime transport undertaking discharging public service obligations — National Law providing for the possibility of making payments on account prior to the approval of an agreement)

text:
               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/9

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 June 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova (Italy)) — Fallimento Traghetti del Mediterraneo SpA v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri
   (Case C-140/09) (1)

   (State aid - Subsidies paid to a maritime transport undertaking discharging public service obligations - National Law providing for the possibility of making payments on account prior to the approval of an agreement)
   2010/C 209/12
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Genova

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Fallimento Traghetti del Mediterraneo SpA

      Defendant: Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Genova — State aid — Compatibility with Articles 86 to 88 EC of national legislation under which State aid can be paid to maritime transport undertakings responsible for the performance of public service contracts, in the absence of agreements between those undertakings and the administrative authorities and without the prior establishment of precise and stringent criteria capable of ensuring that payment of the aid cannot give rise to distortion of competition

      Operative part of the judgment

   Under European Union law subsidies paid in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, pursuant to national legislation providing for payments on account prior to the approval of an agreement, constitute State aid if those subsidies are liable to affect trade between Member States and distort or threaten to distort competition, which it is for the national court to determine.

      (1)  OJ C 153, 4.7.2009.


title: Case C-607/15 P: Appeal brought on 18 November 2015 by Magyar Bencés Kongregáció Pannonhalmi Főapátság against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 10 September 2015 in Case T-453/14 Magyar Bencés Kongregáció Pannonhalmi Főapátság v European Parliament

text:
               4.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/15

         Appeal brought on 18 November 2015 by Magyar Bencés Kongregáció Pannonhalmi Főapátság against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 10 September 2015 in Case T-453/14 Magyar Bencés Kongregáció Pannonhalmi Főapátság v European Parliament

   (Case C-607/15 P)
   (2016/C 243/15)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Parties

      Appellant: Magyar Bencés Kongregáció Pannonhalmi Főapátság (represented by: D. Sobor, ügyvéd)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament
   By order of 4 May 2016, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered the applicant to pay the costs.