title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 12 January 1995 in Case T-102/92: Viho Europe BV v. Commission of the European Communities (Competition - Complaints - Rejection - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Groups of companies - Article 85 (1) of the Treaty)

text:
4 . 3 . 95             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 54/15
                                                      COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                           ASSIGNMENT OF JUDGES TO CHAMBERS
                                                              ( 95/C 54/25 )
               Following the taking up by Ms Tiili, Ms Lindh and Mr Azizi of their duties as Judges, the Court of
               First Instance decides, in accordance with Article 10 ( 1 ) of the Rules of Procedure, to supplement as
               follows the Decision of 2 June 1994 i 1 ) on the composition of the Chambers for the 1994/1995
               judicial year:
               — Judge Tiili is assigned to the First Chamber, to the First Chamber in its extended composition and
                   to the Second Chamber in its extended composition,
               — Judge Lindh is assigned to the Fourth Chamber, to the Third Chamber in its extended
                   composition and to the Fourth Chamber in its extended composition,
               — Judge Azizi is assigned to the Third Chamber, to the Third Chamber in its extended composition
                   and to the Fourth Chamber in its extended composition.
               (!) OJ No C 233 , 20 . 8 . 1994 .
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 2. orders the applicant to pay the whole of the costs,
                      of 12 January 1995                                     including those incurred by the intervener, Parker Pen
                                                                             Ltd.
in Case T-l 02/92: Viho Europe BV v. Commission of the
                   European Communities (*)                             (!) OJ No C 1 , 5 . 1 . 1993 .
(Competition — Complaints — Rejection — Agreements,
decisions and concerted practices — Groups of companies
                — Article 85 (1) of the Treaty)
                          ( 95/C 54/26 )
                                                                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                of 12 January 1995
                                                                        in Case T-85/94: Eugenio Branco La*. v. Commission of the
In Case T-l 02/92: Viho Europe BV, established in                                         European Communities C )
Maastricht (Netherlands ), represented by Werner
Kleinmann, Rechtsanwalt, Stuttgart, with an address for                 (European Social Fund — Application for annulment of a
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Dupong et                      decision reducing financial assistance initially granted —
Associés, 14A Rue des Bains, v. Commission of the                               Statement of reasons — Default proceedings)
European Communities (Agents: B. Langeheine and B.J.                                                95/C 54/27)
Drijber ), supported by Parker Pen Ltd, whose registered
office is in Newhaven (United Kingdom), represented by                               (Language of the case: Portuguese)
Carla Hamburger, of the Amsterdam Bar, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch,               In Case T-85/94: Eugenio Branco Lda, having its registered
11 Rue Goethe — application for the annulment of the                    office in Lisbon, represented by Bolota Belchior, of the Bar
Commission Decision of 30 September 1992 rejecting the                  of Vila Nova de Gaia, with an address for service in
complaint of Viho Europe BV that Parker Pen Ltd and its                 Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jacques Schroeder, 6 Rue
subsidiaries infringed Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EEC Treaty               Heine, against Commission of the European Communities
(IV/32.725 — Viho/Parker Pen II) — the Court of First                   (Agents: F. de Sousa Fialho and H. Kreppel) — application
Instance (First Chamber ), composed of: R. Schintgen,                   for the annulment of the Commission decision of 29 March
President, and R. García-Valdecasas, H. Kirschner, B.                   1993 reducing the assistance initially granted to the
Vesterdorf and C.W. Bellamy, Judges, H. Jung, Registrar,                applicant by the European Social Fund — the Court of First
has given a judgment on 12 January 1995, in which it:                   Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: J. Biancarelli,
                                                                        President, C.P. Briët and C.W. Bellamy, Judges, H. Jung,
                                                                        Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 January 1995, in
 1 . dismisses the application;                                         which it:


title: Case T-413/14: Order of the General Court of 5 October 2015 — Grigoriadis and Others v Parliament and Others (Action for failure to act and for damages — Restructuring of the Greek public debt — Involvement of the private sector — Loss consisting in the reduction of sums owed — Statements by the Heads of State or Government of the euro area and the EU institutions — Eurogroup statement — Failure to specify the causal link with the loss pleaded — Inadmissibility)

text:
               23.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 389/57

         Order of the General Court of 5 October 2015 — Grigoriadis and Others v Parliament and Others
   (Case T-413/14) (1)

   ((Action for failure to act and for damages - Restructuring of the Greek public debt - Involvement of the private sector - Loss consisting in the reduction of sums owed - Statements by the Heads of State or Government of the euro area and the EU institutions - Eurogroup statement - Failure to specify the causal link with the loss pleaded - Inadmissibility))
   (2015/C 389/65)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicants: Grigoris Grigoriadis (Athens, Greece), Faidra Grigoriadou (Athens), Ioannis Tsolias (Thessaloniki, Greece), Dimitrios Alexopoulos (Thessaloniki), Nikolaos Papageorgiou (Athens) and Ioannis Marinopoulos (Athens) (represented by: C. Papadimitriou, lawyer)

      Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: A. Troupiotis and L. Visaggio, acting as Agents); European Council; Eurogroup; Council of the European Union (represented by: A. de Gregorio Merino and M. Balta, acting as Agents); European Commission (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents); and European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: P. Papapaschalis and P. Senkovic, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   First, an application for a declaration that the defendants unlawfully failed to act in order for the bonds held by the applicants not to be affected by the plan for private sector involvement in the debt financing programme (PSI), reducing the value of the Greek State’s debt, and second, an application seeking compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicants following that unlawful failure to act.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Grigoris Grigoriadis, Faidra Grigoriadou, Ioannis Tsolias, Dimitrios Alexopoulos, Nikolaos Papageorgiou and Ioannis Marinopoulos shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 439, 8.12.2014.


title: Case C-227/07: Action brought on 8 May 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/16

         Action brought on 8 May 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-227/07)
   (2007/C 199/26)
   Language of the case: Polish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Shotter and K. Mojzesowicz, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to transpose correctly into national law 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) (1) and, in particular, Article 4(1) thereof relating to an obligation to negotiate interconnection with each other, and the first subparagraph of Article 5(1) thereof relating to the power of the national regulatory authority to encourage and where appropriate ensure, in accordance with the directive's provisions, adequate access and interconnection, and interoperability of services, the Republic of Poland failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (Access Directive) provides that operators of public communications networks are to have a right and obligation to negotiate interconnection with each other for the purpose of providing publicly available electronic communications services, in order to ensure provision and interoperability of services throughout the Community. It also requires that the national regulatory authorities have power to encourage and where appropriate to ensure, in accordance with the directive's provisions, adequate access, interconnection and interoperability of services.
   As regards the Republic of Poland, the period for transposing that directive expired, under the combined provisions of Articles 2 and 54 of the Act of Accession, on 30 April 2004.
   Under Polish law, all operators of public communications networks are bound to negotiate access and the national regulatory authority may impose a time-limit for such negotiations to be concluded. In addition, if the parties do not reach an agreement, the national regulatory authority may, at the request of one of the parties, adopt a decision which will replace the contract and thus impose obligations on undertakings irrespective of their position on the market. The Commission claims that those provisions of Poland's law on telecommunications do not comply with the requirements of Article 4(1) and the first subparagraph of Article 5(1) of the Access Directive.
   As regards the introduction, in general legal provisions, of an obligation to negotiate access contracts in good faith, the effect of that solution is to impose the obligation to negotiate without first establishing a lack of effective competition on the market concerned, and does not enable the national regulatory authority to examine the impact of the obligation to grant access on long term competition on that market and, consequently, to suppress that obligation if competition on the market intensifies.
   As regards the national regulatory authority's power to adopt a decision which will replace the parties' contract, it is important to note that the first subparagraph of Article 5(1) of the Access Directive cannot be implemented by a general legal provision because it requires that a national regulatory authority be empowered to act only in certain circumstances. The power conferred on national regulatory authorities by virtue of the above-mentioned provision of the directive is clearly limited, first, by the reference to the ‘objectives set out in Article 8 of Directive 2002/21/EC (2) (Framework Directive)’ and, second, by the requirement laid down in Article 5(3) of the Access Directive. Those limits on the national regulatory authority's power ensure that it will act only in certain well defined circumstances. In addition, the regulatory obligations may be imposed only on undertakings having significant power on the market or, irrespective of the undertaking's power on the market, in the circumstances mentioned in Article 8(3) of the Access Directive. It follows that if the national regulatory authority decides to intervene, such intervention must have the directive's provisions as its legal basis, including when the national regulatory authority decides to impose regulatory obligations.

      (1)  OJ 2002, L 108, p. 7.

      (2)  Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications and services (Framework Directive) (OJ 2002, L 108, p. 33, and OJ, Polish Special Edition, Chapter 13, Vol. 29, p. 349).


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Hamburg by order of that court of 22 May 1995 in the case of Nils Draehmpaehl v. Urania Immobilienservice ohG (Case C-180/95)

text:
12 . 8 . 95               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 208/ 11
      1995 amending Regulation ( EC ) No 3362/94 fixing, for           Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht
      certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, the total         Hamburg by order of that court of 22 May 1995 in the case
      allowable catches for 1995 and certain conditions under            of Nils Draehmpaehl v. Urania Immobilienservice ohG
      which they may be fished ,                                                                ( Case C-l 80/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 208/21
— order the defendant institution to pay the costs .
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    European Communities by an order of the Arbeitsgericht
                                                                       Hamburg ( Labour Court, Hamburg) (21st Chamber ) of
— Infringement of Article 39 of the EC Treaty : by allowing            22 May 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on
      part of the quota of anchovy which had been allocated to         9 June 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Nils
      Portugal by Regulation ( EC ) No 3362/94 in Zone IX to           Draehmpaehl v. Urania Immobilienservice ohG on the
      be fished not in that zone but in Zone VIII, the TAC             following questions :
      fixed for Zone VIII is being increased from 33 000
      metric tonnes to 38 008 metric tonnes , without there            1 . Does a statutory provision which prescribes, for
      being any new scientific data to justify it. Therefore, by           compensation on grounds of discrimination based on
      not pursuing by means of the contested provisions either             sex in the making of an appointment, a presumption of
      the optimum utilization of the factors of production or              the fault of the employer conflict with Articles 2(1 ) and
      the stability of the market, the objectives of the common            3 ( 1 ) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February
      fisheries policy set out in Article 39 of the EC Treaty are           1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal
      not being observed .                                                 treatment of men and women as regards access to
                                                                           employment, vocational training and promotion, and
— Infringement             of     Council   Regulation     ( EEC )         working conditions (*)?
      No 3760/92 .
                                                                       2 . Does a statutory provision which prescribes a maximum
      — Infringement of the requirement to ensure the                      limit of three months' salary as compensation for
          national and responsible exploitation of resources :             discrimination based on sex in the making of an
                                                                           appointment — in contrast to other domestic provisions
                                                                           in civil and labour law — for applicants of either sex
          all the existing scientific studies clearly show that            who have been discriminated against in the procedure,
          there exist two independent stocks of anchovy, that              but who would not have been received the position to be
          of Zone VIII of the Gulf of Biscay and that of Zone              filled even in the event of non-discriminatory selection
          IX of the Gulf of Cadiz, which are not related in any            by reason of the superior qualifications of the applicant
          way and which therefore have required and continue               appointed , conflict with Articles 2 ( 1 ) and 3 ( 1 ) of
          to require separate treatment. None the less, by                  Council Directive 76/207/EEC on the implementation
          means of the contested provisions and without any                of the principle of equal treatment for men and women
          scientific basis whatsoever, the TAC fixed for 1995              as regards access to employment, vocational training
          in Zone VIII is increased de facto. Regulation ( EEC )           and promotion, and working conditions ?
          No 3760/92 is thereby not being complied with since
          the objective of a rational and responsible
          exploitation of resources is not being achieved,             3 . Does a statutory provision which prescribes a maximum
          rather, very much on the contrary, a species is being            limit of three months' salary as compensation for
          overexploited .                                                   discrimination based on sex and the making of an
                                                                            appointment — in contrast to other domestic provisions
                                                                           in civil and labour law — for applicants of either sex
      — Infringement of the principle of relative stability:               who, in the event of selection free from discrimination
                                                                           would have received the position to be filled, conflict
          The amount by which the quota of anchovy referred                with Articles 2 ( 1 ) and 3 ( 1 ) of Council Directive
          to in Zone VII has been amended, that is, 5 008                   76/207/EEC ?
          metric tonnes, is awarded entirely to a country such
          as Portugal which has never had a quota in that zone         4 . Does a statutory provision which prescribes a
          (without prejudice to the possibility of subsequently            cumulative maximum limit of six months' salary for all
          exchanging it with another Member State ), without                persons who have suffered discrimination as
          taking into account the requirement to maintain the              compensation claimed by several parties for
          fixed percentage for each of the Member States                    discrimination based on sex in the making of an
          ( France and Spain ) which share the allocation of that           apointment — in contrast to other domestic provisions
          stock .                                                           in civil and labour law — conflict with Articles 2(1 ) and
                                                                            3 ( 1 ) of Directive 76/207/EEC ?
( 1 ) OJ No L 71 , 31 . 3 . 1995 , p . 5 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 74 , 1 . 4 . 1995 , p . 1 .                              (M OJ No L 39 , 14 . 2 . 1976 , p . 40.


title: Opinion 3/15: Opinion of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 February 2017 — European Commission (Opinion pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU — Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons who are Blind, Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled — Article 3 TFEU — Exclusive external competence of the European Union — Article 207 TFEU — Common commercial policy — Commercial aspects of intellectual property — International agreement that may affect common rules or alter their scope — Directive 2001/29/EC — Article 5(3)(b) and (4) — Exceptions and limitations for the benefit of people with a disability.)

text:
               10.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/3

         Opinion of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 February 2017 — European Commission
   (Opinion 3/15) (1)

   ((Opinion pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU - Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons who are Blind, Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled - Article 3 TFEU - Exclusive external competence of the European Union - Article 207 TFEU - Common commercial policy - Commercial aspects of intellectual property - International agreement that may affect common rules or alter their scope - Directive 2001/29/EC - Article 5(3)(b) and (4) - Exceptions and limitations for the benefit of people with a disability.))
   (2017/C 112/04)
   Language of the case: all the official languages

      Requested by

   European Commission (represented by: B. Hartmann, F. Castillo de la Torre and J. Samnadda, agents)

      Operative part

   The conclusion of the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled falls within the exclusive competence of the European Union.

      (1)  OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.


title: Case C-229/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Verden (Germany) lodged on 12 May 2014  — Ender Balkaya v Kiesel Abbruch- und Recycling Technik GmbH

text:
               8.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/8

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Verden (Germany) lodged on 12 May 2014 — Ender Balkaya v Kiesel Abbruch- und Recycling Technik GmbH
   (Case C-229/14)
   2014/C 303/10
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Arbeitsgericht Verden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ender Balkaya

      Defendant: Kiesel Abbruch- und Recycling Technik GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is applicable EU law, in particular Article 1(1)(a) of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies, (1) to be interpreted as precluding national legislative provisions or practices which provide that in carrying out the calculation provided for by that provision for the number of affected workers a member of the board of directors of a limited liability company should be omitted, even where he performs his duties at the direction and subject to the supervision of another body of that company, he receives remuneration in return for the performance of his duties, and does not himself own any shares in the company?

               2.

               Is applicable EU law, in particular Article 1(1)(a) of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies, to be interpreted as making it mandatory that in carrying out the calculation provided for by that provision for the number of affected workers it is necessary to regard as workers persons who are not remunerated by the employer but are given financial support and are recognised by the competent public authority having responsibility for employment support, who actually perform work in order to acquire or improve skills or to complete vocational training (‘trainees’), or are Member States permitted to lay down national legislative provisions or practices as regards them?

      (1)  OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16.


title: Case T-200/16: Judgment of the General Court of 3 May 2017 — Gfi PSF v Commission (Public service contracts — Public procurement procedure — Development, maintenance, evolution and assistance services for websites — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid — Bid received already open — Article 111(4)(b) of the Financial Regulation)

text:
               19.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 3 May 2017 — Gfi PSF v Commission
   (Case T-200/16) (1)

   ((Public service contracts - Public procurement procedure - Development, maintenance, evolution and assistance services for websites - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Bid received already open - Article 111(4)(b) of the Financial Regulation))
   (2017/C 195/34)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Gfi PSF Sàrl (Leudelange, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Moyse, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Delaude and S. Lejeune, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Firstly, action on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decisions of 2 and 16 March 2016 of the Publications Office of the European Union rejecting the applicant’s tender submitted in the context of the public procurement procedure concerning, in particular, the development, maintenance, evolution and assistance services for that office’s websites (OJ 2015/S 251-459901) and, insofar as necessary, of the confirmatory decision of the POEU of 22 April 2016 and, secondly, action on the basis of Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the harm suffered by the applicant as a result of those decisions.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Gfi PSF Sàrl to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 222, 20.6.2016.


title: Case C-453/12: Order of the President of the Court of 8 December 2014  — European Commission v Council of the European Union

text:
               23.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/27

         Order of the President of the Court of 8 December 2014 — European Commission v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-453/12) (1)

   (2015/C 065/37)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 379, 8.12.2012.


title: Case T-242/99: Action brought on 19 October 1999 by Esso Nederland B.V. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
22.1.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 20/23
(c) failed to properly evaluate the facts and law which establish        Action brought on 15 October 1999 by BP Nederland
    that the notified agreements do not satisfy the conditions           V.O.F., BP Direct V.O.F. and Actomat B.V. against the
    of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 17.                                          Commission of the European Communities
(1) OJ C 8, p. 4.                                                                                (Case T-237/99)
(2) OJ L 186, p. 28.
                                                                                (2000/C 20/47)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Action brought on 18 October 1999 by Patrick Monod-                      ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Gayraud against the Commission of the European Com-                      European Communities on 15 October 1999 by BP Nederland
                            munities                                     V.O.F., BP Direct V.O.F. and Actomat B.V., respectively estab-
                                                                         lished in Rotterdam, Alphen a/d Rijn and Amsterdam (Nether-
                                                                         lands), represented by Mr van Empel and Mr Smeets, of the
                        (Case T-234/99)
                                                                         Amsterdam Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                         the Chambers of G. Harles, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt.
                         (2000/C 20/46)
                                                                         The applicants claim that the Court should:
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         (a) annul the Commission’s decision [C(1999) 2539 final] (1)
                                                                              of 20 July 1999 concerning State aid granted by the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                     Netherlands to 633 service stations in the region bordering
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                    Germany and requiring the repayment of State aid granted
European Communities on 18 October 1999 by Patrick Mo-                        by the Netherlands to 450 service stations;
nod-Gayraud, residing in Warsaw (Poland), represented by
Hélène Masse-Dessen, of the Paris Bar, and Viviane Ecker, of the         (b) order the Commission to pay the costs.
Luxembourg Bar, 77 Boulevard Grande Duchesse Charlotte.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Pleas in law and main arguments
— annul the Commission’s decision refusing the benefit of                The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case
    free accommodation;                                                  T-248/99.
— order the Commission to pay the applicant damages
    amounting to EUR 91 200;                                             (1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
— order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The action concerns the defendant’s refusal, dated 29 June               Action brought on 19 October 1999 by Esso Nederland
1999, to accept responsibility for payment of the rent for               B.V. against the Commission of the European Communi-
accommodation used by the applicant, a French civil servant                                             ties
on secondment as an expert to the Commission’s delegation
in Poland.
                                                                                (Case T-242/99)
In support of his claims, the applicant pleads, in particular, the
fact that that decision is contrary to the undertakings pre-                                      (2000/C 20/48)
viously given by the Commission in relation to him.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
He adds that it is not possible to raise against him the argument
that the rent for accommodation cannot be reimbursed to an
official where, as in his case, the accommodation belongs to             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
the official’s spouse. He never in fact chose to live in an              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
apartment belonging to his wife; that situation arose as a result        European Communities on 19 October 1999 by Esso Neder-
of the attitude adopted by the Commission.                               land B.V., of The Hague (Netherlands), represented by M.H. van
                                                                         der Woude and R.W. Wezenbeek-Geuke, of the Brussels Bar,
                                                                         with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                         J. Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe.
 ---pagebreak--- C 20/24               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       22.1.2000
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               Pleas in law and main arguments
(a) annul the Commission’s decision (C(1999) 2539 final) (1)
    of 20 July 1999 concerning State aid granted by the                   The applicant company seeks annulment of Commission
    Netherlands to 633 service stations in the region bordering           Decision C (1999) 1363 def. of 11 May 1999 on economic
    Germany;                                                              and financial aid to two sugar manufacturing plants which
                                                                          process all the sugar beet from four Italian regions (Tuscany,
(b) order the Commission to pay the costs.                                Umbria, Lazio and Abruzzo).
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           In the contested decision, the Commission found that:
This case corresponds to Case T-210/99. The applicant claims              — all the financial aid investigated constituted State aid;
that it was not it but the service station operators, who carry
on business autonomously and independently from Esso, that
applied for and received the aid; consequently, it cannot be              — most of the aid was incompatible with the common
required to repay the aid. In its view, the decision is based on               market, and therefore to be refunded.
an incomplete and incorrect assessment of the facts and also
infringes Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty by introducing the
concept of the de facto recipient of the aid.
                                                                          According to the applicant, in reaching that conclusion the
                                                                          Commission disregarded the arguments, information and
(1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.                                        figures submitted by the Italian authorities during the adminis-
                                                                          trative procedure. It thus reached a decision which, apart from
                                                                          being insufficiently reasoned, discloses manifest errors of
                                                                          assessment in respect of fundamental questions of law and fact
                                                                          in relation, inter alia, to the relevant Community legislation;
                                                                          the scope and effects of the legislation and measures adopted
                                                                          by the Italian authorities; the content, scope and effects of
                                                                          the legal and economic relationships between the parties
                                                                          concerned; the scope and effects of the various aid packages
                                                                          investigated; the identification of the recipients of the so-called
Action brought on 18 October 1999 by Sadam Abruzzo                        State aid; and the compatibility of that aid with the principles
Spa against the Commission of the European Communi-                       and rules applicable in such cases.
                               ties
                        (Case T-244/99)                                   In particular, it is alleged that the Commission disregarded
                                                                          inter alia the following aspects:
                         (2000/C 20/49)
                                                                          — the protection of the agricultural and industrial production
                                                                               concerned was in this case guaranteed by the relevant
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                             Community rules which allowed Italy considerable latitude
                                                                               to grant production aid;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                — the aid given to the two manufacturing plants was entirely
European Communities on 18 October 1999 by Sadam Abruz-                        consistent with the objectives of the national plan for the
zo Spa, represented by Antonio Tizzano and Gian Michele                        sector in question, which had been approved earlier by the
Roberti, of the Naples Bar, and Alberto Maffei Alberti,                        Commission;
Gualtiero Pittalis and Alessandra Franchi, of the Bologna Bar,
with an address for service in Brussels at 36 Place du Grand
Sablon.                                                                   — the difficulties encountered over a certain period by the
                                                                               plants concerned depended on external factors, which did
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    not in the least diminish their economic potential or their
                                                                               productivity prospects;
— annul (wholly or in part) the Commission’s decision of
    11 May 1999 concerning State aid granted by Italy to the              — the plants in question are located in assisted regions and,
    sugar sector (C (1999) 1363 def.);                                         as confirmed by the national plan for the sector, are
                                                                               essential to ensure a market outlet for products from two
— order the Commission of the European Communities to                          regions of fundamental importance for the cultivation of
    pay the costs.                                                             sugar beet;


title: Case C-273/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Baranya Megyei Bíróság lodged on 3 June 2011 — Mecsek-Gabona Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/24

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Baranya Megyei Bíróság lodged on 3 June 2011 — Mecsek-Gabona Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága
   (Case C-273/11)
   2011/C 269/44
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Baranya Megyei Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Mecsek-Gabona Kft.

      Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 138(1) of Directive 2006/112 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the sale of a product is exempt from VAT if the product is sold to a buyer who is registered for VAT in another Member State at the time when the sale contract is concluded, and the buyer concludes the sale contract in respect of the product in such a way that the right of disposal and right of ownership are transferred to the buyer upon loading onto the mode of transportation, and the buyer assumes the obligation of transportation to the other Member State?

               2.

               In order to make a VAT-exempt sale, is it sufficient for the seller to satisfy himself that the goods sold are transported by foreign-registered vehicles, and that he is in possession of the CMRs returned by the buyer, or must he ensure that the product sold has crossed the national border and has been transported within Community territory?

               3.

               Can the fact of a VAT-exempt sale of a product be called into question purely on the basis that the tax authority of another Member State retrospectively revokes the buyer’s Community tax number with effect from a date prior to the sale of the product?

      (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 19 February 1998 in Case C-309/95: Commission of the European Communities v. Council of the European Union, supported by the French Republic (Exceptional aid to producers of table wine in France)

text:
C 94/4                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       28.3.98
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                 Northern Ireland, Queen's Bench Division, for a
                       (Sixth Chamber)                               preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                                                                     court between Northern Ireland Fish Producers'
                     of 19 February 1998                             Organisation Ltd (NIFPO) and Northern Ireland
       in Case C-309/95: Commission of the European                  Fishermen's Federation and Department of Agriculture for
       Communities v. Council of the European Union,                 Northern Ireland Ð on the validity of Council Regulation
             supported by the French Republic (1)                    (EC) No 3362/94 of 20 December 1994 fixing, for certain
                                                                     fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, the total allowable
   (Exceptional aid to producers of table wine in France)            catches for 1995 and certain conditions under which they
                         (98/C 94/07)                                may be fished (OJ L 363, 31.12.1994, p. 1), on the
                                                                     validity of Annex VII to the resolution of 3 November
                                                                     1976 adopted by the Council at The Hague and on the
                (Language of the case: French)                       interpretation of the priniciple of State liability for damage
                                                                     occasioned to individuals by breaches of Community law
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       Ð the Court: composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias,
          published in the European Court Reports)                   President, C. Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm, R. Schintgen
                                                                     (Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini, P. J. G. Kapteyn
                                                                     (Rapporteur), J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P.
In Case 309/95: Commission of the European
                                                                     Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann, Judges; A. La Pergola,
Communities (Agents: GeÂrard Rozet and Jean-Paul
                                                                     Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal
Keppenne) v. Council of the European Union (Agents:
                                                                     Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
Rüdiger Bandilla and Diego Canga Fano), supported by
                                                                     19 February 1998, in which it has ruled:
the French Republic (Agents: Catherine de Salins and
FreÂdeÂric Pascal) Ð application for the annulment of the
Council's decision of 22 June 1995 on the granting of                1. The validity of the allocation of cod and whiting
exceptional aid to producers of table wine in France Ð                    quotas in Area VIIa by Council Regulation (EC)
the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: H. Ragnemalm,                     No 3362/94 of 20 December 1994 fixing, for certain
President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini, P. J. G. Kapteyn                 fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, the total
(Rapporteur), J. L. Murray and G. Hirsch, Judges; G.                      allowable catches for 1995 and certain conditions
Cosmas, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given                  under which they may be fished is not dependent on
a judgment on 19 February 1998, in which it:                              whether Annex VII to the resolution of 3 November
                                                                          1976 adopted by the Council at The Hague was
1. dismisses the application as inadmissible;                             properly adopted.
2. orders the Commission to pay the costs;                           2. Consideration of Regulation (EC) No 3362/94 has
                                                                          revealed no factor of such a kind as to affect its
3. orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.                      validity.
(1) OJ C 315, 25.11.1995.                                            (1) OJ C 64, 2.3.1996.
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                   ORDER OF THE COURT
                     of 19 February 1998                                                    (First Chamber)
in Case C-4/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                                of 15 January 1998
the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland, Queen's
Bench Division): Northern Ireland Fish Producers'                    in Case C-196/97 P: Intertronic F. Cornelis GmbH v.
Organisation Ltd (NIFPO) and Northern Ireland                                Commission of the European Communities (1)
Fishermen's Federation v. Department of Agriculture for
                     Northern Ireland (1)                                            (Appeal manifestly unfounded)
(Fisheries Ð Hague Preferences Ð TACs Ð Cod and                                               (98/C 94/09)
whiting Ð Discretion of the Community legislature Ð
Relative stability Ð Principles of proportionality and non-                         (Language of the case: German)
                        discrimination)
                         (98/C 94/08)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                (Language of the case: English)                                published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-4/96: reference to the Court under Article 177             In Case C-196/97 P: Intertronic F. Cornelis GmbH, a
of the EC Treaty from the High Court of Justice in                   company incorporated under German law, established in


title: Case C-265/14 P: Order of the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of 1 September 2015 — Cemex SAB. de CV, New Sunward Holding BV, Cemex España SA, Cemex Deutschland AG, Cemex UK, Cemex Czech Operations s.r.o., Cemex France Gestion, Cemex Austria AG v European Commission

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/23

         Order of the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of 1 September 2015 — Cemex SAB. de CV, New Sunward Holding BV, Cemex España SA, Cemex Deutschland AG, Cemex UK, Cemex Czech Operations s.r.o., Cemex France Gestion, Cemex Austria AG v European Commission
   (Case C-265/14 P) (1)

   (2015/C 398/29)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 253, 4.8.2014.


title: Case C-350/16 P: Appeal brought on 24 June 2016 by Salvatore Aniello Pappalardo, Pescatori La Tonnara Soc. coop., Fedemar Srl, Testa Giuseppe & C. s.n.c, Pescatori San Pietro Apostolo Srl, Camplone Arnaldo & C. Snc di Camplone Arnaldo & C., and Valentino Pesca s.a.s. di Camplone Arnaldo & C. against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 27 April 2016 in Case T-316/13 Pappalardo and Others v Commission

text:
               19.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/28

         Appeal brought on 24 June 2016 by Salvatore Aniello Pappalardo, Pescatori La Tonnara Soc. coop., Fedemar Srl, Testa Giuseppe & C. s.n.c, Pescatori San Pietro Apostolo Srl, Camplone Arnaldo & C. Snc di Camplone Arnaldo & C., and Valentino Pesca s.a.s. di Camplone Arnaldo & C. against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 27 April 2016 in Case T-316/13 Pappalardo and Others v Commission
   (Case C-350/16 P)
   (2016/C 343/41)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellants: Salvatore Aniello Pappalardo, Pescatori La Tonnara Soc. coop., Fedemar Srl, Testa Giuseppe & C. s.n.c, Pescatori San Pietro Apostolo Srl, Camplone Arnaldo & C. Snc di Camplone Arnaldo & C., and Valentino Pesca s.a.s. di Camplone Arnaldo & C. (represented by: V. Cannizzaro and L. Caroli, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court of Justice of the European Union should:

               —

               Primarily, set aside the judgment of the General Court delivered on 27 April 2016 in Case T-316/13 and refer the case back to the General Court in order that it may give a ruling on the dispute in compliance with the principles of law established by the Court of Justice.

               —

               In the alternative, should it find, pursuant to Article 61 of the Statute, that the documents before it enable it to do so, decide on the merits of the claim for compensation put forward by the appellants in the action originally brought before the General Court and, specifically:

                           1.

                           declare that the European Commission has incurred non-contractual liability for the damage caused to the appellants by the adoption of Regulation No 530/2008 establishing emergency measures as regards purse seiners fishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45oW, and in the Mediterranean Sea, (1) declared invalid by the Court of Justice by judgment of 17 March 2011 in Case C-221/09 [AJD Tuna]; and, consequently,

                           2.

                           order the European Commission to compensate the appellants for the damage caused;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               I.

               The General Court erred in law in excluding the relevance of its order of 14 February 2012 in Case T-305/08 for establishing the significance of the declaration of invalidity made in the judgment in AJD Tuna in respect of Regulation No 530/2008.
               In order to declare that there was no need to adjudicate in Case T-305/08, the order of 14 February 2012 interpreted the judgment in AJD Tuna as having entirely satisfied the applicant’s claim in that case, namely the request for a declaration of invalidity of Article 1 of Regulation No 530/2008. Therefore, establishing the significance of the declaration of invalidity made in the judgment in AJD Tuna forms the subject matter of the decision given in the order of 14 February 2012.
               It follows that, in the judgment now under appeal, the General Court should have applied the declaration of invalidity made in the judgment in AJD Tuna in respect of Regulation No 530/2008, the significance of which was established in its order of 14 February 2012 in Case T-305/08.

               II.

               The General Court erred in law in holding that the infringement by Regulation No 530/2008 of the principle of non-discrimination does not constitute a clear and serious breach.
               The General Court failed to take into account how the clear and serious nature of the infringement of the principle of non-discrimination is already indicated by the judgment in AJD Tuna. In addition, the General Court failed to apply the principles laid down in its own case-law in Case T-351/03 Schneider v Commission and in Case T-429/05 Artegodan v Commission. Lastly, the General Court failed to apply the test set out by the Court of Justice in Case C-440/07 P Commission v Schneider.

      (1)  OJ 2008 L 155, p. 9.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 September 2004 in Case C-248/02: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Pollution and nuisance — Sol protection — Sewage sludge — Forwarding of incomplete information for the years 1995 to 1997 — Articles 10 and 17 of Directive 86/278/EEC)

text:
               6.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 273/2

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 16 September 2004
   in Case C-248/02: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Pollution and nuisance - Sol protection - Sewage sludge - Forwarding of incomplete information for the years 1995 to 1997 - Articles 10 and 17 of Directive 86/278/EEC)
   (2004/C 273/03)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case C-248/02: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: H. Støvlbæk and R Amorosi) v Italian Republic (Agent: I.M. Braguglia, assisted by M. Fiorilli) the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: A. Rosas, acting as President of the Third Chamber, R. Schintgen and K. Schiemann (Rapporteur), Judges; C- Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 16 September 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               By not providing any information on the average annual value for concentrations (mg/kg dry matter) of heavy metal (cadmium, copper, nickel, lead, zinc, mercury and chromium) and of the elements nitrogen and phosphorus contained in sewage sludge;

                           —

                           by failing to provide any information as to quantity (t/year) of sewage sludge produced as dry matter;

                           —

                           by failing to provide the necessary information as to the quantity of sludge used annually in agriculture as dry matter, except in regard to the Region of Friuli-Venezia Giulia (1995 to 1997), the Autonomous Province of Bolzano (1995), Emilia Romagna, Liguria and Calabria, in respect of which it was indicated that sewage sludge was not used in agriculture;

                           —

                           by failing to ensure that the registers in which the composition and characteristics of the sludge are entered by reference to the parameters referred to in Annex II as to Council Directive 86/278/EEC of 12 June 1986 on the protection of the environment, and in particular of the soil, when sewage sludge is used in agriculture are properly updated, and

                           —

                           by failing to ensure that the registers in which the quantities of sludge produced (with regard to the whole of Italy) and the sludge used in agriculture, at least with regard to Abruzzo, Campania, Tuscany and Sicily are entered are properly updated,

                     the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 10(1)(a) and (b) and 17 of Directive 86/728, as amended by Council Directive 91/692/EEC of 23 December 1991, which seeks to standardise and to rationalise reports on the implementation of certain directives concerning the environment.

               2.

               The Italian Republic is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 202 of 24.8.2002.


title: Case C-254/09 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 September 2010 — Calvin Klein Trademark Trust v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Zafra Marroquineros SL (Appeals — Community trade mark — Word mark CK CREACIONES KENNYA — Opposition by the proprietor of inter alia the Community figurative mark CK Calvin Klein and national marks CK — Opposition rejected)

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/12

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 September 2010 — Calvin Klein Trademark Trust v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Zafra Marroquineros SL
      (Case C-254/09 P) (1)

      (Appeals - Community trade mark - Word mark CK CREACIONES KENNYA - Opposition by the proprietor of inter alia the Community figurative mark CK Calvin Klein and national marks CK - Opposition rejected)
      (2010/C 288/18)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Appellant: Calvin Klein Trademark Trust (represented by: T. Andrade Boué, lawyer)

         Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Mondéjar Ortuño, Agent), Zafra Marroquineros SL (represented by: J.E. Martín Álvarez, lawyer)

         Re:

      Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 7 May 2009 in Case T 185/07 Calvin Klein Trademark Trust v OHIM and Zafra Marroquineros, SL dismissing the action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 March 2007 (Case R 314/2006-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Calvin Klein Trademark Trust and Zafra Marroquineros, SL.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the appeal

                  2.

                  Orders Calvin Klein Trademark Trust to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 205, 29.8.2009.


title: Case C-328/02: Action brought on 18 September 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
26.10.2002             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 261/9
2.    order Ireland to pay the costs.                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        —     Declare that, by restricting itself to transposing part of
                                                                              Article 1 of and Annexes IV and V of Council Directive
                                                                              98/81/EC of 26 October 1998 on the contained use of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               genetically modified micro-organisms ( 1) or, in any event,
                                                                              by failing to communicate other implementing measures
The Commission submits that:                                                  to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has
                                                                              failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that
                                                                              directive;
—     Ireland has infringed Article 9(2) of Regulation 3760/92
      by failing to put in place appropriate detailed rules for
      proper utilisation of the quota allocated to it. The rules        —     Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
      should have been such as to enable Ireland to ensure that
      overfishing did not take place and that quotas were
      always respected;
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
—     Ireland did not ensure compliance with Community rules
      on control, contrary to Article 2 of Regulation 2847/93;
                                                                        Under Article 249 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
—     Ireland did not respect its obligation under Article 21 of        directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
      Regulation 2847/93 to prohibit fishery provisionally              each Member State to which it is addressed, Member States are
      when the quota allocated to it was deemed to have been            required to observe the time-limits laid down in directives for
      exhausted;                                                        their transposition.
—     by failing to institute criminal or administrative proceed-
      ings against the skipper or any other party responsible           The Commission finds that, despite the prescribed time-limit
      for preventing overfishing Ireland has not complied in            having expired, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has carried
      full with the obligations imposed by Article 31 of                out only a partial transposition of the directive referred to in
      Regulation 2847/93.                                               the Commission’s pleadings, restricted to part of Article 1
                                                                        thereof and Annexes IV and V thereto.
( 1) OJ L 389, 31.12.1992, p. 1.
( 2) OJ L 261, 20.10.1993, p. 1.
                                                                        (1 ) OJ 1998 L 330, p. 13.
Action brought on 16 September 2002 by Commission                       Action brought on 18 September 2002 by the Com-
of the European Communities against Grand Duchy of                      mission of the European Communities against the
                           Luxembourg                                                           Hellenic Republic
                         (Case C-325/02)                                                         (Case C-328/02)
                         (2002/C 261/14)                                                         (2002/C 261/15)
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                     An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-            the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 11 Sep-
ties on 16 September 2002 by the Commission of the                      tember 2002 by the Commission of the European Communi-
European Communities, represented by U. Wölker and                      ties, represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, Legal Adviser in
F. Simonetti, acting as Agents.                                         its Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- C 261/10               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     26.10.2002
The Commission claims that the Court should:                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     declare that, by failing to adopt all the necessary measures        —     Declare that, by excluding absolutely the application of
      prescribed by Council Regulation No 3508/92 (1) estab-                    the rate of levy in discharge to income arising from the
      lishing an integrated administration and control system                   investments and contracts referred to in Articles 125-0 A
      for certain Community aid schemes, the Hellenic Republic                  and 125 A of the Code général des impôts (General Tax
      has failed to fulfil its obligations under that regulation;               Code), where the debtor is not resident or established in
                                                                                France, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obli-
                                                                                gations under Articles 49 and 56 EC;
—     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                          —     Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
Under the regulation at issue, the Member States were obliged             The income referred to in Article 125 A of the Code general
to establish by 1 January 1997 an integrated system including             des impôts (CGI) (income from interest arising from arrears
a computerised data base, an alphanumeric identification                  and from all kinds of State bonds, stocks, participation share
system for agricultural parcels, an alphanumeric system for               certificates, stocks and other certificates of indebtedness,
the identification and registration of animals, standardised              deposits, guarantees and current accounts) and that referred to
processing of aid applications and an integrated control system           in Article 125-0 A of the CGI (income from certificates or
(Article 2).                                                              bond investments and other similar investments), is subject to
                                                                          income tax. None the less, the levy in discharge (which is often
                                                                          attractive because its rate is generally lower than the marginal
                                                                          rate of tax resulting from the application of the progressive
The Greek authorities have not yet established an integrated
                                                                          scale of tax on income and of splitting income) can be applied
system of that kind, and the alternative system which they
                                                                          to it only if the debtor is resident or established in France.
apply for checking areas and requests for payment has
repeatedly been considered inadequate and has been the cause
of corrections in the clearing of accounts.
                                                                          The Commission takes the view that the above constitutes a
                                                                          restriction on the freedom to provide services and on the free
                                                                          movement of capitals contrary to Articles 49 and 56 of the EC
( 1) OJ L 355, 5.12.1992, p. 1.                                           Treaty, in that the more generally favourable levy in discharge
                                                                          is not applied to income collected by French residents from a
                                                                          debtor which is not resident or established in France, even if
                                                                          the person in question is able to provide evidence that it fulfils
                                                                          all the conditions in which the levy in discharge is applied to
                                                                          income obtained from a debtor resident or established in
                                                                          France.
Action brought on 20 September 2002 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against the French
                               Republic
                                                                          Action brought on 20 September 2002 by the Com-
                          (Case C-334/02)                                 mission of the European Communities against the Grand
                                                                                Duchy of Luxembourg
                          (2002/C 261/16)
                                                                                (Case C-335/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 261/17)
An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 20 Septem-
ber 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by R. Lyal and Ch. Giolito, acting as Agents, with            An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
an address for service in Luxembourg.                                     brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-


title: Case C-50/07: Action brought on 5 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               24.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/10

         Action brought on 5 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-50/07)
   (2007/C 69/23)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Stromsky and S. Pardo Quintillán, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain
   Form of order sought

               —

               A declaration that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/24/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending, as regards traditional herbal medicinal products, Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that directive;

               —

               an order that the Kingdom of Spain should pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposition into domestic law of Directive 2004/24/EC expired on 30 October 2005.

      (1)  OJ L 136, 2004, p. 85.


title: Case T-813/14: Action brought on 16 December 2014 — Liu v OHIM — DSN Marketing (Cases for portable computers)

text:
               23.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/40

         Action brought on 16 December 2014 — Liu v OHIM — DSN Marketing (Cases for portable computers)
   (Case T-813/14)
   (2015/C 065/56)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Min Liu (Guangzhou, China) (represented by: R. Bailly and S. Zhang, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: DSN Marketing Ltd (Crawley, United Kingdom)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

      Design at issue: Community design No 002044180-0001

      Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 October 2014 in Case R 1864/2013-3

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 7(1) and 7(2) of Regulation No 2245/2002.


title: Case C-180/03 P: Appeal brought on 25 April 2003 by B. Latino against the judgment delivered on 26 February 2003 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-145/01 between B. Latino and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 158/10               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         5.7.2003
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Il Tribunale di                  J.R. Iturriagagoitia and K. Delvolvé, lawyers. The appellant
Genova by order of that Court of 20 March 2003 in the                      claims that the Court should:
action brought by Fallimento ‘raghetti del Mediterraneo’-
        SPA, in liquidation, against Italian Republic
                                                                           principally:
                         (Case C-173/03)
                                                                           —     declare that the appeal is admissible and founded,
                         (2003/C 158/17)
                                                                           —     set aside the second point of the operative part of the
                                                                                judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance on
                                                                                26 February 2003 in Case T-145/01;
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Il Tribunale di Genova
(Genoa District Court) of 20 March 2003, received at the                   in the alternative:
Court Registry on 14 April 2003, for a preliminary ruling in
the action brought by Fallimento ’Traghetti del Mediterraneo’              —     annul the express decision of the Appointing Authority
SPA, in liquidation, against Italian Republic on the following                   of 10 August 2000 not to acknowledge the occupational
questions:                                                                       origin of his arthritic symptoms following his request of
                                                                                7 May 1996;
1.   Is a Member State liable on the basis of non-contractual
     liability to individual citizens for errors by its own judges
     in the application of Community law or the failure to                 in any event:
     apply it correctly and in particular the failure by a court
     of last instance to discharge the obligation to make a                —     make an order as to costs in accordance with the
     reference to the Court of Justice under the third paragraph                 applicable provisions of the Rules of Procedure.
     of Article 234.
2.   Where a Member State is deemed liable for the errors of
     its own judges in the application of Community law and
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
     in particular for failure by a court of last instance to make
     a reference to the Court of Justice under Article 234 EC,
     is affirmation of that liability negated in a manner                  —     First ground of appeal: Breach, by the Commission, of
     incompatible with the principles of Community law by                        Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and Article 3(2) of the
     national legislation on State liability for judicial errors                 Rules on the Insurance of Officials of the European
                                                                                Communities against the Risk of Accident and of Occu-
     which:
                                                                                pational Disease:
     —     precludes liability in relation to the interpretation of              The appellant contests the finding of the Court of First
           provisions of law and assessment of facts and of the
                                                                                Instance that the Commission, in refusing to acknowledge
           evidence adduced in the course of the exercise of                     the occupational origin of his arthritic lesions on the
           judicial activity,
                                                                                ground that it had not been sufficiently established, had
     —     limits State liability solely to cases of fraud and                   not infringed either Article 73 of the Staff Regulations or
           serious default on the part of the judge?                             Article 3(2) of the Rules on the Insurance of Officials of
                                                                                the European Communities against the Risk of Accident
                                                                                and of Occupational Disease.
                                                                           —     Second ground of appeal: Infringement of the delimi-
                                                                                tation of the powers of Medical Committees
Appeal brought on 25 April 2003 by B. Latino against the                         The appellant claims that the Commission and the Court
judgment delivered on 26 February 2003 by the First                              of First Instance are in breach of the general principle of
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                           law ‘semper in dubiis benigniora preferenda sunt’ in the
Communities in Case T-145/01 between B. Latino and the                           case of doubt as to the real cause of the symptoms and
        Commission of the European Communities                                   that there were irregularities in the procedure of the
                                                                                Medical Committee. The second reference to the Medical
                        (Case C-180/03 P)                                        Committee was improper, first because once it had given
                                                                                its first opinion, the Committee had become ‘functus
                         (2003/C 158/18)                                         officio’ and, secondly, because since it had already given
                                                                                its opinion and included a member of the Medical Service
                                                                                of the Commission, it did not fulfil the conditions
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 26 February                          of independence and impartiality required. Lastly, the
2003 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of                      absence of Community rules on the procedure to be
the European Communities in Case T-145/01 between B. La-                         followed obliges Medical Committees to comply with the
tino and the Commission of the European Communities                              instructions which they receive from the institutions.
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 25 April 2003 by B. Latino, represented by


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 November 2000 in Case C-319/99: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to transpose Directive 95/47/EC)

text:
C 79/2                   EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          10.3.2001
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger,             pending before that court between Ursula Elsen and Bundesver-
Hoss et Prussen, 15 Côte d’Eich — appeal against the judgment              sicherungsanstalt für Angestellte — on the interpretation of
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                 Article 51 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 42
(First Chamber, Extended Composition) of 24 October 1997                   EC) and Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June
in Case T-243/94 British Steel v Commission [1997] ECR II-                 1971 on the application of social security schemes to
1887, seeking to have that judgment set aside in so far as                 employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members
it dismissed its application against Commission Decision                   of their families moving within the Community, as amended
94/258/ECSC of 12 April 1994 concerning aid to be granted                  and updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of
by Spain to the public integrated steel company Corporación               2 June 1983 (OJ 1983 L 230, p. 6), as amended at the material
de la Siderurgia Integral (CSI) and Commission Decision                    time, in particular by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2195/91
94/259/ECSC of 12 April 1994 concerning aid to be granted                  of 25 June 1991 (OJ 1991 L 206, p. 2) — the Court (Fifth
by Italy to the public steel sector (Ilva group) (OJ 1994 L 112,           Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola, President of the
pp. 58 and 64 respectively), the other parties to the proceedings          Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur) and D.A.O. Edward,
being: Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                     Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
N. Khan and P.F. Nemitz), Det Danske Stålvalseværk A/S,                    given a judgment on 23 November 2000, in which it has
established in Frederiksværk, Denmark, represented by                      ruled:
J.A. Lawrence and A. Renshaw, Solicitors, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of E. Arendt, 8-                     Articles 8a, 48 and 51 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
10 Rue Mathias Hardt, Italian Republic (Agents: Professor                  Articles 18 EC, 39 EC and 42 EC) require that, for the purpose of
U. Leanza, assisted by P.G. Ferriv), Kingdom of Spain (Agent:              the grant of an old-age pension, the competent institution of a
N. Dı́az Abad), Council of the European Union (Agents:                     Member State take into account, as though they had been completed
J. Carbery and A.P. Feeney), Svenskt Stål AB (SSAB), established           in national territory, periods devoted to child-rearing completed in
in Stockholm, Sweden, and Ilva Laminati Piani SpA, established             another Member State by a person who, at the time when the child
in Rome, Italy — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed                       was born, was a frontier worker employed in the territory of the first
of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet                 Member State and residing in the territory of the second Member
(Rapporteur), and M. Macken, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate                 State.
General; R. Grass, the Registrar, has given a judgment on
23 November 2000, in which it:
                                                                           (1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.
1.    Dismisses the appeal;
2.    Orders British Steel plc, now Corus UK Ltd, to pay the costs;
3.    Orders the Italian Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the Council
      of the European Union and Det Danske Stålvalseværk A/S to
      bear their own costs.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(1) OJ C 72 of 7.3.1998.
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
                                                                                of 23 November 2000
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                 in Case C-319/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v French Republic (1)
                       of 23 November 2000
in Case C-135/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                  (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
the Bundessozialgericht): Ursula Elsen v Bundesver-                                        to transpose Directive 95/47/EC)
              sicherungsanstalt für Angestellte (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 79/04)
(Social security for migrant workers — Regulation (EEC)
No 1408/71 — Articles 3 and 10 and Annex VI, Section C,
point 19 — Old-age insurance — Validation of periods of                                        (Language of the case: French)
      child-rearing completed in another Member State)
                            (2001/C 79/03)                                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                           In Case C-319/99: Commission of the European Communities
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     (Agent: M. Nolin) v French Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-
                    in the European Court Reports)                         Bellanger and A. Maitrepierre) — application for a declaration
                                                                           that, by not communicating within the prescribed period the
In Case C-135/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of              laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Bundessozialge-                comply with Directive 95/47/EC of the European Parliament
richt (Germany), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings               and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the use of standards
 ---pagebreak--- 10.3.2001                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                                C 79/3
for the transmission of television signals (OJ 1995 L 281,                   communicating those provisions to the Commission, the
p. 51) or by not taking the measures necessary to comply                     French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
therewith, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations          that directive — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of:
under that directive — the Court (Third Chamber), composed                   C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, J.-P.
of: C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, J.-P.                 Puissochet and F. Macken, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate General;
Puissochet and F. Macken, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate General;               R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 November
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 November                     2000, in which it:
2000, in which it:
                                                                             1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period              the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
      the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to             comply with Directive 97/68/EC of the European Parliament
      comply with Directive 95/47/EC of the European Parliament                    and of the Council of 16 December 1997 on the approximation
      and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the use of standards                of the laws of the Member States relating to measures against
      for the transmission of television signals, the French Republic              the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from
      has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;                   internal combustion engines to be installed in non-road mobile
                                                                                machinery, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.                                 under that directive;
                                                                             2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 299 of 16.10.1999.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 299 of 16.10.1999.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Third Chamber)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                        of 23 November 2000                                                        of 30 November 2000
in Case C-320/99: Commission of the European Communi-                        in Case C-436/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                      ties v French Republic (1)                             the Supreme Court): HMIL Ltd v Minister for Agriculture,
                                                                                Food and Forestry (1)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Directive 97/68/EC — Non-road mobile machinery —                             (Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets —
        Emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants)                      Special export refunds and private storage aid for certain
                                                                                pieces of beef)
                             (2001/C 79/05)
                                                                                (2001/C 79/06)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                             In Case C-436/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                             the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Supreme Court
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             (Ireland), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
                                                                             before that court between HMIL Ltd and Minister for Agri-
In Case C-320/99: Commission of the European Communities                     culture, Food and Forestry — on the interpretation of Com-
(Agent: M. Nolin) v French Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-                      mission Regulation (EEC) No 1964/82 of 20 July 1982 laying
Bellanger and G. Taillandier) — application for a declaration                down the conditions for granting special export refunds on
that, by not adopting within the prescribed period the laws,                 certain cuts of boned meat of bovine animals (OJ 1982 L 212,
regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply                p. 48, and the corrigendum at OJ 1982 L 273, p. 43), as
with Directive 97/68/EC of the European Parliament and of                    amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3169/87 of
the Council of 16 December 1997 on the approximation of                      23 October 1987 amending Regulations (EEC) No 32/82,
the laws of the Member States relating to measures against the               (EEC) No 1964/82 and (EEC) No 74/84 in the matter of
emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from internal                 customs export formalities for certain beef on which special
combustion engines to be installed in non-road mobile                        refunds are granted (OJ 1987 L 301, p. 21), and of Commission
machinery (OJ 1998 L 59, p. 1) or, in any event, by not                      Regulation (EEC) No 2675/88 of 29 August 1988 providing


title: Case C-163/02: Action brought on 30 April 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
C 156/8                  EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      29.6.2002
Action brought on 30 April 2002 by the Commission of                      Action brought on 30 April 2002 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Federal Republic                     the European Communities against the Federal Republic
                            of Germany                                                                of Germany
                          (Case C-162/02)                                                           (Case C-163/02)
                          (2002/C 156/14)                                                           (2002/C 156/15)
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                     An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-              brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 30 April 2002 by the Commission of the European                   ties on 30 April 2002 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Gerald Braun, of its Legal Service,           Communities, represented by Gerald Braun, of its Legal Service,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Luis           with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Luis
Escobar Guerrero, of its Legal Service, at Wagner Centre C 254,           Escobar Guerrero, of its Legal Service, at Wagner Centre C
Kirchberg, Luxembourg.                                                    254, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               The applicant claims that the Court should:
(1) declare that the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to            (1) declare that the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to
      fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and Commission                 fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and Commission
      Directive 1999/68/EC (1) of 28 June 1999 setting out                      Directive 1999/66/EC (1) of 28 June 1999 setting out
      additional provisions for lists of varieties of ornamental                requirements as to the label or other document made out
      plants as kept by suppliers under Council Directive 98/                   by the supplier pursuant to Council Directive 98/56/
      56/EC (2) in that it has not adopted all the laws, regulations            EC (2) in that has not adopted all the laws, regulations and
      and administrative provisions necessary in order to                       administrative provisions necessary in order to transpose
      transpose that directive into national law within the                     that directive into national law within the prescribed
      prescribed period;                                                        period;
(2) order the defendant to pay the costs.                                 (2) order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
The time-limit for transposition of the directive expired on              The time-limit for transposition of the directive expired on
31 December 1999.                                                         31 December 1999.
(1) OJ 1999 L 172, p. 42.                                                 (1) OJ 1999 L 164, p. 76.
(2) OJ 1998 L 226, p. 16.                                                 (2) OJ 1998 L 226, p. 16.


title: Case F-34/05: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of  14 June 2006  — Lebedef and Others v Commission (Work environment — Language of computer tools made available to Commission staff — Inadmissibility — Legal interest in bringing proceedings — Act adversely affecting an official — Internal organisation measures)

text:
               29.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/41

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 14 June 2006 — Lebedef and Others v Commission
   (Case F-34/05) (1)

   (Work environment - Language of computer tools made available to Commission staff - Inadmissibility - Legal interest in bringing proceedings - Act adversely affecting an official - Internal organisation measures)
   (2006/C 178/77)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Giorgio Lebedef (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), Armand Imbert (Brussels, Belgium), Jean-Marie Rousseau (Brussels, Belgium) and Maria Rosario Domenech Cobo (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Joris and P. Costa de Oliveira, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the decision of the Commission of the European Communities rejecting the applicants' request to have computer tools made available to them in their mother tongue or in another official language of the European Union of their choice and not only in English.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Each of the parties shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 193 of 6.8.2005 (Case initially registered before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under number T-204/05 and transferred to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal by order of 15.12.2005).