title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof by order of that court of 22 October 1997 in the case of Landesgrundverkehrsreferent der Tiroler Landesregierung v. (1) Adolf Sparber, (2) Atelier Delta Entwurf- und Planungsgesellschaft mbH in liquidation, (3) Hans-Eberhard Junkersdorf and (4) Maria-Margareta Junkersdorf (Case C-407/97)

text:
7.2.98                EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 41/11
3. If so:                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster
                                                                   Gerichtshof by order of that court of 22 October 1997 in
                                                                   the case of Landesgrundverkehrsreferent der Tiroler
    Should Article 522 in conjunction with Article 526(4)          Landesregierung v. (1) Adolf Sparber, (2) Atelier Delta
    of the Provisions implementing the Community                   Entwurf- und Planungsgesellschaft mbH in liquidation, (3)
    Customs Code, in the versions enacted by Article 1,            Hans-Eberhard Junkersdorf and (4) Maria-Margareta
    points 16 and 18, of Commission Regulation (EC)                                          Junkersdorf
    No 3254/94 of 19 December 1994 (OJ L 346,
    31.12.1994, p. 1), also be applied to customs                                         (Case C-407/97)
    declarations before 7 January 1995?                                                     (98/C 41/21)
                                                                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                   European Communities by an order of the Oberster
                                                                   Gerichtshof (Supreme Court), Austria, of 22 October
                                                                   1997, which was received at the Court Registry on
Action brought on 4 December 1997 by the Commission                5 December 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of             Landesgrundverkehrsreferent der Tiroler Landesregierung
                         Luxembourg                                v. (1) Adolf Sparber, (2) Atelier Delta Entwurf- und
                       (Case C-406/97)                             Planungsgesellschaft mbH in liquidation, (3) Hans-
                                                                   Eberhard      Junkersdorf      and   (4)  Maria-Margareta
                         (98/C 41/20)                              Junkersdorf on the following question:
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                Is Article 70 of the Act concerning the conditions of
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of
Communities on 4 December 1997 by the Commission of                Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments
the European Communities, represented by Michel Nolin,             to the Treaties on which the European Union is
of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for         founded (1), which provides that notwithstanding the
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la          obligations under the treaties on which the European
Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.              Union is founded the Republic of Austria may maintain its
                                                                   existing legislation regarding secondary residences for five
                                                                   years from the date of accession (1 January 1995), to be
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        interpreted as meaning that the transitional provisions
                                                                   in paragraph 40(2) and (5) of the Tiroler
                                                                   Grundverkehrsgesetz 1996 (Landesgesetzblatt für Tirol
Ð declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force           No 61/1996), which entered into force on 1 October
    within the prescribed period the laws, regulations or          1996, fall within the definition of existing legislation, or
    administrative provisions necessary to comply with             are those provisions to be regarded as new legislation
    Council Directive 93/7/EEC of 15 March 1993 on the             if, as a result of decisions of the Austrian
    return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the         Verfassungsgerichtshof, the provisions of previous Tyrol
    territory of a Member State (1), or by failing to inform       laws on the sale of land were not applicable in the present
    the Commission thereof, the Grand Duchy of                     case?
    Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under
    that Directive,
                                                                   (1) OJ C 241, 29.8.1994, p. 1.
Ð order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the
    costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                   Action brought on 5 December 1997 by the Commission
                                                                   of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third                                         Luxembourg
paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty requires
                                                                                (Case C-409/97)
Member States to adopt the measures necessary to
transpose directives addressed to them into their domestic                                  (98/C 41/22)
law before the expiry of the period prescribed for doing
so. In the present case, that period expired on
15 December 1993 without the Grand Duchy of                        An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
Luxembourg having brought into force the necessary                 brought before the Court of Justice of the European
provisions.                                                        Communities on 5 December 1997 by the Commission of
                                                                   the European Communities, represented by Marie
                                                                   Wolfcarius, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an
(1) OJ L 74, 27.3.1993, p. 74.
                                                                   address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                                                                   Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
                                                                   Kirchberg.


title: Case C-301/07: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 October 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria)) — PAGO International GmbH v Tirolmilch registrierte Genossenschaft mbH (Trade marks — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 9(1)(c) — Trade mark with a reputation in the Community — Geographical extent of the reputation)

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/3

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 October 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria)) — PAGO International GmbH v Tirolmilch registrierte Genossenschaft mbH
   (Case C-301/07) (1)

   (Trade marks - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 9(1)(c) - Trade mark with a reputation in the Community - Geographical extent of the reputation)
   2010/C 24/04
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: PAGO International GmbH

      Defendant: Tirolmilch registrierte Genossenschaft mbH

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 9(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1) — Rights of the proprietor of a trade mark having a reputation in the Community — Trade mark having a reputation only in one Member State — Protection of the trade mark in the whole of the Community or only in one Member State

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 9(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to benefit from the protection afforded in that provision, a Community trade mark must be known by a significant part of the public concerned by the products or services covered by that trade mark, in a substantial part of the territory of the European Community, and that, in view of the facts of the main proceedings, the territory of the Member State in question may be considered to constitute a substantial part of the territory of the Community.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 22.9.2007.


title: Case T-359/07 P: Appeal brought on 19 September 2007 by Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 5 July 2007 in Case F-26/06, Bertolete and Others v Commission

text:
               24.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/31

         Appeal brought on 19 September 2007 by Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 5 July 2007 in Case F-26/06, Bertolete and Others v Commission
   (Case T-359/07 P)
   (2007/C 283/57)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Martin and L. Lozano Palacios, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: M. Bertolete (Wolowé-Saint-Lambert, Belgiun), A.P. Cunha Correia (Koekelberg, Belgium), M. Lichteveld (Wavre, Belgium), M. Mozelsio (Enghien, Belgium), F. Orlando (Anderlecht, Belgium), F. Pendville (Etterbeek, Belgium), B. Simons (Bocholt, Belgium), D. Sneessens (Auderghem, Belgium), S. Voisin (Forest, Belgium)
   Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               Annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 5 July 2007 in Case F-26/06;

               —

               refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;

               —

               reserve the costs;

               —

               in the alternative, annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 5 July 2007 in Case F-26/06 and, in determining the present case itself, grant the forms of order sought by the defendant at first instance, and therefore, dismiss the action in Case F-26/06; order the defendant in the appeal to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By judgment of 5 July 2007 in Case F-26/06, Bertolete and Others v Commission, the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) annulled the decisions by which the Commission fixed the applicants' grading and remuneration under contracts for members of the contract staff. The applicants, former salaried employees under Belgian law, were engaged as nursery school teachers following a change to the regime applicable to other servants of the Communities.
   The Commission's first plea in support of its appeal alleges an error of law in that the Civil Service Tribunal misconstrued the scope of the principle of equal treatment in its interpretation of the applicable provisions, in particular in relation to the definition used by the Commission to include family allowances in the definition of remuneration.
   The second plea alleges breach of the principle of the obligation to state reasons in that the Civil Service Tribunal did not rule on the concept of remuneration.


title: Case C-313/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de commerce de Paris (France) lodged on 25 June 2015 — Eco-Emballages SA v Sphère France SAS, Schweitzer SAS, Carrefour Import SAS, Tissue France SCA, SCA Hygiène Products SAS, WEPA Troyes SAS, Industrie Cartarie Tronchetti SpA, Industrie Cartarie Tronchetti Ibérica, SL, Kimberly-Clark SAS, Gopack SAS, Delipapier, CMC France SARL, Paul Hartmann SA, Wepa Lille SAS, Industrie Cartarie Tronchetti France SAS, Melitta France SAS, Cofresco Frischhalteprodukte GmbH & Co. KG, Scamark SAS, Système U Centrale Nationale SAS

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/38

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de commerce de Paris (France) lodged on 25 June 2015 — Eco-Emballages SA v Sphère France SAS, Schweitzer SAS, Carrefour Import SAS, Tissue France SCA, SCA Hygiène Products SAS, WEPA Troyes SAS, Industrie Cartarie Tronchetti SpA, Industrie Cartarie Tronchetti Ibérica, SL, Kimberly-Clark SAS, Gopack SAS, Delipapier, CMC France SARL, Paul Hartmann SA, Wepa Lille SAS, Industrie Cartarie Tronchetti France SAS, Melitta France SAS, Cofresco Frischhalteprodukte GmbH & Co. KG, Scamark SAS, Système U Centrale Nationale SAS
   (Case C-313/15)
   (2015/C 294/49)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de commerce de Paris

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Eco-Emballages SA

      Defendants: Sphère France SAS, Schweitzer SAS, Carrefour Import SAS, Tissue France SCA, SCA Hygiène Products SAS, WEPA Troyes SAS, Industrie Cartarie Tronchetti SpA, Industrie Cartarie Tronchetti Ibérica, SL, Kimberly-Clark SAS, Gopack SAS, Delipapier, CMC France SARL, Paul Hartmann SA, Wepa Lille SAS, Industrie Cartarie Tronchetti France SAS, Melitta France SAS, Cofresco Frischhalteprodukte GmbH & Co. KG, Scamark SAS, Système U Centrale Nationale SAS

      Question referred

   Does the concept of packaging, as defined in Article 3 of Directive 94/62/EC, amended by Directive 2004/12/EC (1), include ‘roll cores’ (rolls, tubes, cylinders) around which flexible material, such as paper or plastic film, is wound and sold to consumers?

      (1)  Directive 2004/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 amending Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste (OJ 2004 L 47, p. 26).


title: Case C-513/13 P: Appeal brought on 25 September 2013 by the Kingdom of Spain against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 11 July 2013 in Case T-358/08 Spain v Commission

text:
               16.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 336/11

         Appeal brought on 25 September 2013 by the Kingdom of Spain against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 11 July 2013 in Case T-358/08 Spain v Commission
   (Case C-513/13 P)
   2013/C 336/24
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that the present appeal is well founded and set aside the judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2013 in Case T-358/08 Kingdom of Spain v European Commission;

               —

               Annul Commission Decision No C(2008) 3249 of 25 June 2008 concerning the reduction of the assistance granted under the Cohesion Fund to Project No 96/11/61/018 — ‘Saneamiento de Zaragoza’ by Commission Decision No C(96) 2095 of 26 July 1996;

               —

               Order the respondent to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

                     Error of law with respect to the effects of the period referred to in Article H(2) of Annex II to Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/94

                   (1)

                     of 16 May 1994 establishing a Cohesion Fund
                  . After the expiry of the period referred to, the Commission may no longer adopt any financial correction measures and, therefore, it is obliged to make payment and the correction applied is unlawful.

               2.

                     Error of law in relation to the concept of ‘work’, in holding that the whole of a network constitutes a single work within the meaning of Article 1(c) of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts

                   (2). The judgment under appeal departs from the case-law in Case C-16/98 Commission v France [2000] ECR I-8315 in failing to take account of the need for geographical continuity of the works taken as a whole and for interdependence between them, namely, the need for interconnection for the provision of the service.

      (1)  OJ L 130, 25.5.1994, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 54.


title: Case T-357/03: Action brought on 23 October 2003 by Bruno Gollnisch and Others against the European Parliament

text:
10.1.2004             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                               C 7/39
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant, an official of the European Parliament, obtained           Following the entry into force on 1 January 2001 of the new
a court decision on 6 August 1999 to the effect that her                  financial regulation applicable to the general budget of the
daughter should reside mainly with her. The applicant and her             European Communities (1), the Parliament commenced a pro-
husband, also an official, were divorced by decree of 31 Octo-            cedure for amendment of the rules concerning budgetary
ber 2001, which became final on 12 January 2002. The                      heading 3701, the credits of which are intended to cover
Parliament decided to pay the applicant only half the travel              administrative and operational expenses of the political groups
expenses for her daughter, and to do so as from 2002, the                 and of the secretariat for non-attached Members. On 2 July
year in which the divorce took place.                                     2003 the Bureau of the Parliament decided to adopt the revised
                                                                          version of the latter rules, subject to amendment of the
                                                                          Parliament’s Rules of Procedure and other changes which
                                                                          might prove necessary following further consultations.
By this application the applicant contests that decision, on the
basis of Article 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations. The
applicant submits that, in view of the decision granting her
primary custody of her daughter, the latter should be regarded            In support of their application for annulment of the decision
as being her dependent child and therefore that the travel                adopting the new rules, the applicant invoke first the alleged
expenses should be paid to her at the full rate.                          failure to comply with formal requirements laid down for the
                                                                          adoption of such rules. They contend that the new rules were
                                                                          notified to them in the form of a proposal which did not
                                                                          purport to be the final version of an official document. They
                                                                          also submit that the contested measure was adopted without
                                                                          the budgetary control committee, from which an opinion had
                                                                          been sought, having issued its report and that therefore an
                                                                          essential procedural requirement had been disregarded. In
                                                                          addition to matters of form, the applicants also claim that
                                                                          the new rules infringe the principle of equal treatment by
Action brought on 23 October 2003 by Bruno Gollnisch                      prohibiting new categories of expenses or employment of staff
        and Others against the European Parliament                        under budgetary heading 3701 only as far as non-attached
                                                                          Members are concerned.
                        (Case T-357/03)
                                                                          (1) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June
                                                                              2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget
                         (2004/C 7/72)                                        of the European Communities (OJ L 248 of 16.9.2002, p. 1).
                   (Language of the case: French)
An action was brought before the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities on 23 October 2003 against the                   Action brought on 17 October 2003 by Siegfried Krahl
European Parliament by Bruno Gollnisch, of Limonest (France),               against the Commission of the European Communities
Marie-France Stirbois, of Villeneuve-Loubey (France), Carl
Lang, of Boulogne-Billancourt (France), Jean-Claude Martinez,
of Montpellier (France), Philip Claeys, of Overijse (Belgium)                                     (Case T-358/03)
and Koen Dillon, of Antwerp (Belgium), represented by
Wallerand de Saint Just, lawyer.
                                                                                (2004/C 7/73)
The applicants claim that Court of First Instance should:                                    (Language of the case: French)
—     annul the decision of the Bureau of the European
      Parliament of 2 July 2003 and more particularly the
      provisions thereof adopting a proposal by Mr Poettering             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      concerning the report of Mr Van Hulten, which amends                ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      the rules on the use of budgetary heading 3701;
                                                                          European Communities on 17 October 2003 by Siegfried
                                                                          Krahl, residing in Zagreb (Croatia), represented by Sébastien
—     order the European Parliament to pay the costs and                  Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Étienne Marchal,
      lawyer’s fees amounting to EUR 10 000.                              lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.


title: Case C-241/00 P: Appeal brought on 15 June 2000 by Kish Glass Company Limited against the judgment delivered on 30 March 2000 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-65/96 between Kish Glass Company Ltd and the Commission of the European Communities, supported by Pilkington United Kingdom Ltd

text:
26.8.2000             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 247/19
Action brought on 15 June 2000 by the Commission                         Appeal brought on 15 June 2000 by Kish Glass Company
of the European Communities against the Republic of                      Limited against the judgment delivered on 30 March 2000
                             Finland                                     by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                         the European Communities in case T-65/96 between Kish
                                                                         Glass Company Ltd and the Commission of the European
                        (Case C-240/00)                                  Communities, supported by Pilkington United Kingdom
                                                                                Ltd
                        (2000/C 247/25)
                                                                                (Case C-241/00 P)
An action against the Republic of Finland was brought before                                      (2000/C 247/26)
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 15 June
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Esa Paasivirta and Richard Wainwright, of its             An appeal against the judgment delivered on 30 March 2000
Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in          by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner             European Communities in case T-65/96 between Kish Glass
Centre, Kirchberg.                                                       Company Ltd and the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties, supported by Pilkington United Kingdom Ltd, was brought
                                                                         before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
The Commission claims that the Court should:                             15 June 2000 by Kish Glass Company Ltd, represented by
                                                                         Mr Maurice Byrne, solicitor, with an address for service in
                                                                         Luxembourg at the office of Arendt & Medernach, 8-10 rue
1.    Declare that the Republic of Finland, which has not                Mathias Hardt, B.P. 39.
      adequately or definitively classified special protection
      areas as required by Article 4(1) and (2) of Council
      Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conser-                The Appellant claims that the Court should:
      vation of wild birds (1), has failed to fulfil its obligations
      under that directive;
                                                                         —      quash the decision of the Court of First Instance and
                                                                                annul the Decision of the Commission dated 21 February
2.    Order Finland to pay the costs.                                           1996 in Case IV/34.193 — Kish Glass;
                                                                         —      order the Commission to pay Kish’s costs in connection
                                                                                with this appeal, and in connection with Kish’s appli-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 cation to the Court of First Instance.
Article 4(1) of the Birds Directive requires Member States to            Pleas in law and main arguments
classify as special protection areas for conservation of the
species mentioned in Annex I the most suitable territories in
number and size for the conservation of those species. Under             This appeal, which is based on three grounds of law, illustrates
Article 4(2) Member States must take similar measures for                that the Court of First Instance has infringed the principles of
regularly occurring migratory species not listed in Annex I,             Community law in three important respects. The grounds of
bearing in mind their need for protection. Under Article 4(3)            appeal are as follows:
Member States must send the Commission all relevant infor-
mation concerning the sites classified, so that the Commission
may take measures to form a coherent network.                            First ground: incorrect interpretation of the requirements of
                                                                         Article 11(3) of Regulation 17 of 1962 (1).
Since there are no derogations or transitional provisions
concerning the Birds Directive in the Act of Accession of                The Court of First Instance incorrectly interpreted the require-
Finland, the obligations concerning the directive in question            ments of Article 11 of Regulation 17 of 1962, in holding that
should have been fulfilled by 1 January 1995.                            the Commission may obtain evidence by means of oral
                                                                         requests followed by requests in the proper form. The Court
                                                                         has addressed this issue in a contradictory manner.
(1) OJ L 103 of 25.4.1979, p. 1.
                                                                         Second ground: misapplication of the case law of the Court of
                                                                         Justice, in particular BAT & Reynolds v. Commission, and the
                                                                         consequent failure to vindicate the rights of the applicant as a
                                                                         complainant, while holding that nine days was sufficient for
                                                                         Kish to provide comments.
 ---pagebreak--- C 247/20                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        26.8.2000
The Court of First Instance based its conclusions on the extent            2.    order the defendant to pay the costs.
of the rights of a complainant on a misapplication of the BAT
& Reynolds case, and Matra Hachette v. Commission. The
Court should have focussed on the fact that the Commission,
having granted access to the file, failed to give Kish sufficient
time to comment on documents in its file, contrary to the
principles set out in Guérin Automobiles v. Commission. As a
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
result, the Court is in breach of Community law.
Third ground: incorrect application of Article 253 of the EC
                                                                           —     Infringement of Article 87(3) and Article 3(1)(g) of the
Treaty, and misinterpretation of the evidence before the Court
                                                                                EC Treaty, the principle of equal treatment and the
in the judgment.
                                                                                principle of proportionality.
In concluding that the contested decision was adequately
reasoned pursuant to Article 253 (ex Article 190) of the
Treaty, the Court misinterpreted the facts as established at the                 —     In the context of its investigation into the potential
oral hearing. Pursuant to established case law, the extent of the                      amount of development aid to disadvantaged econ-
obligation to state reasons is a question of law reviewable by                         omic areas based on existing regional disparities
the Court of Justice on appeal.                                                        within Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty, the Com-
                                                                                mission established, on the basis of income and
                                                                                unemployment levels, the extent to which areas
                                                                                are disadvantaged measured against the overall
(1) EEC Council Regulation No. 17 of 6 February 1962, First Regu-                      economic situation in each Member State. For
    lation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty, OJ 013,                      Germany, it calculated that 23,4 % of the population
    21.2.1962, p. 204 (OJ, English Special Edition 1959-1962, p. 87).                  live in areas where the economic situation is so bad
                                                                                compared to the economic situation in Germany as
                                                                                a whole that aid under Article 87(3)(c) of the EC
                                                                                Treaty is in principle justified. Germany applied for
                                                                                aid under Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty in respect
                                                                                of areas whose size exactly reflects the figure of
                                                                                23,4 % of the German population calculated by the
                                                                                Commission. The Commission’s curtailing of the
                                                                                parameters of the areas eligible for aid to just 17,6 %
                                                                                of the German population is not based on sufficient
                                                                                grounds nor is it justifiable on the basis that trading
Action brought on 16 June 2000 by the Federal Republic                                 conditions would otherwise be affected to an extent
of Germany against the Commission of the European                                      contrary to the common interest. Germany’s rela-
                           Communities                                                 tively strong economic situation is in any event
                                                                                already taken account of, because regions in rela-
                                                                                tively strong countries economically have to show a
                         (Case C-242/00)                                               bigger divergence from national averages (unem-
                                                                                ployment, per capita GDP measured according to
                                                                                purchasing power standard) than regions in econ-
                         (2000/C 247/27)                                               omically weaker countries, in order to be considered
                                                                                for the method of apportionment. In fact the
                                                                                Commission’s approach even has the result that
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                Ireland and Portugal, for example, may grant
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                                regional aid to areas where income levels are clearly
Communities on 16 June 2000 by the Federal Republic of
                                                                                above the national average, thereby further magnify-
Germany represented by Wolf-Dieter Plessing, Ministerialrat in
                                                                                ing national disparities.
the Federal Ministry for Finances, Graurheindorfer Str. 108,
D-53117 Bonn and Dr Rainer M. Bierwagen of Kemmler Rapp
Böhlke & Crosby, Brussels.
                                                                                —     The Commission treated similar facts differently in
                                                                                determining the maximum amount of regional
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                assistance for the Member States. That is because the
                                                                                Commission, using an objective method, increases
1.     declare the Commission’s decision of 14 March 2000,                             the basic maxima arrived at in respect of some
       K(2000)809 final (1) null and void in so far as proposed                        Member States, but significantly reduces them in
       regional aid notified for Germany for areas within the                          respect of other Member States. The Commission
       meaning of Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty is found to                        therefore affords the favoured Member States oppor-
       be incompatible with the common market on the basis                             tunities to grant aid in amounts which go beyond
       of the figure of 23,4 % of the German population;                               actual regional-political commercial needs. On the


title: Case T-671/15 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 4 December 2015 — E-Control v ACER (Application for interim measures — Opinion on the compliance of national regulatory authorities’ decisions approving the methods of cross-border electricity transmission capacity — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Infringement of the procedural requirements — Inadmissibility)

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/51

         Order of the President of the General Court of 4 December 2015 — E-Control v ACER
   (Case T-671/15 R)
   ((Application for interim measures - Opinion on the compliance of national regulatory authorities’ decisions approving the methods of cross-border electricity transmission capacity - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Infringement of the procedural requirements - Inadmissibility))
   (2016/C 048/59)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Energie-Control Austria für die Regulierung der Elektrizitäts- und Erdgaswirtschaft (E-Control) (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: F. Schuhmacher, lawyer)

      Defendant: Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER)

      Re:

   Application for suspension of operation of Opinion of the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators No 09/2015 of 23 September 2015 on the compliance of national regulatory authorities’ decisions approving the methods of allocation of cross-border transmission capacity in the Central-East Europe region with Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1228/2003 (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 15), and the guidelines on the management and allocation of available transfer capacity of interconnections between national systems contained in Annex I thereto.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-585/15: Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2016 — Monster Energy v EUIPO (GREEN BEANS) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark GREEN BEANS — Application for restitutio in integrum — Non-compliance with the time limit for bringing an action before the General Court)

text:
               25.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/43

         Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2016 — Monster Energy v EUIPO (GREEN BEANS)
   (Case T-585/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark GREEN BEANS - Application for restitutio in integrum - Non-compliance with the time limit for bringing an action before the General Court))
   (2016/C 270/48)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Monster Energy Company (Corona, California, United States) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Gája, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 July 2015 (Case R 3002/2014-2), concerning an application for registration of the word mark GREEN BEANS as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Monster Energy Company to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 406, 7.12.2015.


title: Action brought on 9 September 1998 by Filippos Pierros against Commission of the European Communities (Case T-141/98)

text:
C 358/18               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    21.11.98
distribution and sales organisations (2). According to the            refrains from taking when acting commercially as a
Commission, the measures with which it takes issue tend               producer or wholesale distributor of cigarettes.
to protect and reinforce the applicant's own position on
the market in cigarettes.
                                                                      (1) Commission Decision of 17 June 1998 concerning a procedure
                                                                          under Article 86 of the EC Treaty (IV/36.010-F3 Ð
                                                                          Amministrazione Autonoma dei Monopoli di Stato).
In support of its submissions, the applicant points in the            (2) Articles 2 and 3 of the above Decision.
first place to the absolute vagueness and inadequacy of the
factors which the Commission chose for the purpose of
distinguishing the Italian market from the remainder of
the European market. So far as concerns its dominant
position on the market for the wholesale distribution of
cigarettes, the applicant submits that, in order to
circumvent       its    alleged    hegemony,        Community
                                                                      Action brought on 9 September 1998 by Filippos Pierros
undertakings did not solely have the possibility of
                                                                           against Commission of the European Communities
establishing their own distribution network, since there
are on the Italian market other undertakings operating in                                      (Case T-141/98)
the sector for the distribution of similar categories of
                                                                                (98/C 358/35)
product. Consequently, foreign undertakings have a real
possibility of utilising the numerous commercial operators
within the sector who are authorised by the fiscal
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
authorities to trade in other products subject to excise
duty and treated for administrative and accounting
purposes in the same way as processed tobacco.
                                                                      An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
With regard to distribution activity, the applicant submits           Instance of the European Communities on 9 September
that, following liberalisation, it operates within the                1998 by Filippos Pierros, resident in Athens, Greece,
distribution market on behalf of third parties to the extent          represented by Nikolaos Korogiannakis, of the Athens Bar,
to which it has space available in its warehouses exceeding           with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices
the distributon requirements for its own products, since              of Brown Holding S.A., 310 route d'Esch, L-1471
development of its present distribution network does not              Luxembourg.
form part of its interests. With more particular regard to
the distribution contract, it must be pointed out that there
is no excess in the distribution capacity of AAMS in                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
relation to the requiremens of normal provision of the
market and that the refusal to negotiate individual clauses
with one or other producer is justified by the need not to            Ð annul Commission Decision DG XXIII/MaS (98)
assume divergent and particular obligations in regard to                   1009, asking the applicant to refund the sum of ECU
one producer which the applicant would be unable to                        24 000 on the basis that it was unduly paid in
guarantee to other producers within the context of its                     connection with the grant given by the Commission to
general     distribution     organisation.    Moreover,     the            the Parliamentary Intergroup for Cooperation with the
applicant's restricted storage capacity explains both the                  Countries of Eastern Europe for the purpose of
limit of 30 % on the potential introduction of additional                  organising the European Conference on Tourism held
quantities over those determined by consumption forecasts                  in Budapest on 11, 12 and 13 April 1991, as contrary
as the limits imposed on the introduction of new cigarette                 to Community law, in particular Articles 173 and 190
brands. So far as concerns the clause relating to the                      of the Treaty, on the ground that it infringes the duty
control of cigarettes, it should be borne in mind that the                 to state reasons for administrative measures and
applicant is entitled, and has the duty, to carry out such                 general principles of Community law (namely the right
controls on the products which it markets for the purpose                  to a hearing and the principles of good administration,
of ensuring that it does not infringe the rules applicable to              of diligence and of the protection of legitimate
the sector.                                                                expectations), and on the ground of misuse of powers;
Finally, the applicant challenges the accuracy of the                 Ð annul on the same grounds every administrative,
Commission's allegations of unilateral abusive practices                   judicial or enforcement measure which is consequent
(refusal to authorise increases in monthly quantities and                  or dependent upon that decision, in particular the
measures concerning both sales outlets and retail shops).                  debit note for ECU 24 000;
With particular regard to the problems concerning retail
shops, it must be pointed out that, in so far as adopted in
the exercise of public powers, this specific conduct could            Ð declare that any claim of the Commission in this
not have been evaluated within the scope of the procedure                  matter is time-barred by virtue of Article 4 of the
established under Council Regulation (EEC) No 17/62,                       applicant's declaration of 11 January 1991;
which concerns the applicant's activities exclusively in its
capacity as an undertaking. The rules on competition are
not directly applicable to the measures which the AAMS                Ð allow the applicant the opportunity to consult the file;
 ---pagebreak--- 21.11.98              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 358/19
Ð order the Commission to pay the applicant                        Action brought on 21 September 1998 by J. G. Evans
     compensation for non-material harm in the sum of              and Others against the Commission of the European
     ECU 5 000 000;                                                                         Communities
                                                                                (Case T-148/98)
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.                                                   (98/C 358/36)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                (Language of the case: English)
The applicant was a Member of the European Parliament              An action against the Commission of the European
between 1989 and 1994. While serving as an M.E.P. he               Communities was brought before the Court of First
was Vice-President of the Parliamentary Intergroup for             Instance of the European Communities on 21 September
Cooperation between the Community and the countries of             1998 by J. G. Evans and Others, represented by Thomas
Eastern Europe. In 1990 that intergroup decided, in                Graham and Barbara Hewson, with an address for service
conjunction with the intergroup for tourism, to organise a         in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 11,
conference on tourism between the European Union and               rue Goethe.
the States of central and Eastern Europe.
                                                                   The applicants claim that the Court should:
Its organisation was funded, inter alia, by a grant given by
the European Commission within the framework of the
European Year of Tourism amounting to ECU 30 000,                  Ð annul the Decision of the Commission in Case IV/E-3/
which represented 20 % of the estimated cost of the event.             SWSMA of 30 July 1998 declaring that the
By the contested decision the applicant is now asked to                Commission had no power to act under Article 63(1)
refund ECU 24 000 to the Commission on the ground that                 of the ECSC Treaty in respect of past price
it was wrongly paid. The applicant maintains that the                  discrimination by purchasers against coal-producers
sums in question were handled absolutely lawfully and                  during the period 1984 to 1 April 1990; and
properly and puts forward the following grounds for
annulment:
                                                                   Ð order the Commission to pay the applicants' costs.
1. Total failure to state the grounds for the contested
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     decision;
                                                                   In 1990, 93 coal producers (among them the applicants)
2. Infringement of general principles of Community law,
                                                                   complained in the name of the South Wales Small Mines
     in particular:
                                                                   Association (SWSMA) to the Commission of price
                                                                   discrimination by the Central Electricity Generating Board
     2.1. failure to grant a hearing;                              (CEGB) and its successors, National Power and Power
                                                                   Gen. The complaint concerned the operation of a Joint
                                                                   Understanding between British Coal and the CEGB,
     2.2. misuse of powers;                                        whereby the CEGB bought the bulk of the coal required
                                                                   for electricity generation from british Coal at prices which
     2.3. infringement of       the   principle   of    good       were considerably higher than those offered to the small
           administration;                                         coal producers like the applicants, who were British Coal's
                                                                   competitors.
     2.4. infringement of the principle of the protection of
           legitimate expectations.                                By the contested decision the SWSMA was informed that
                                                                   the Commission had decided not to act on that complaint.
The applicant submits in the alternative that the
Commission's claims relating to the grant in question are          The applicants submit that the Commission erred in law
time-barred.                                                       in concluding that it had no power to make a
                                                                   recommendation under Article 63(1) of the ECSC Treaty
                                                                   in respect of price discrimination during the period 1984
Finally the applicant, relying upon the second paragraph           to 1 April 1990. They submit that the Commission is so
of Article 215(2) of the EC Treaty, claims compensation            empowered. Alternatively, the Commission unlawfully
for the non-material harm which he has suffered by reason          refused to act under Article 63(1) of the ECSC Treaty.
of contested Decision.
                                                                   Furthermore the applicants submit that the Commission's
                                                                   finding that no ground existed for issuing a


C 234/14                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   25.7.98
     that is the case, there is no scope left for the exercise        falls within the scope of the EC Treaty because, although
     of discretion.                                                   their main purpose is not to maximise or redistribute
                                                                      profits, the associations in question may provide services
                                                                      for consideration or obtain income, thus participating in
Ð (In the alternative) Incorrect exercise of discretion in            economic life. The expression profit-making' used in the
     making an assessment under Article 92(3)(a) and (c) of           second paragraph of Article 58 of the EC Treaty refers to
     the EC Treaty.                                                   a Community law concept and does not relate to the
                                                                      domestic law of the Member States.
Ð In so far as the Commission considers that there was a
     breach of Article 52 of the EC Treaty, that too is not
     capable of founding the lawfulness of the contested
     decision. Article 52 of the EC Treaty does not
     constitute a suitable legal basis for the contested
     decision.                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
                                                                      Amministrativo per la Sardegna by judgment of that court
                                                                      of 12 February 1998, in the case of Holst Italia SpA
                                                                      against Municipality of Cagliari and Ruhrwasser AG
                                                                                International Water Management SpA
                                                                                (Case C-176/98)
Action brought on 8 May 1998 by the Commission of the                                         (98/C 234/26)
  European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium
                          (Case C-172/98)
                                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                           (98/C 234/25)                              European Communities by judgment of the Tribunale
                                                                      Amministrativo per la Sardegna (Administrative Court,
                                                                      Sardinia), of 12 February 1998, received at the Court
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                  Registry on 11 May 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities               case of Holst Italia SpA against Municipality of Cagliari
on 8 May 1998 by the Commission of the European                       and Ruhrwasser AG International Water Management
Communities, represented by Maria Patakia, of its Legal               SpA on the following question:
Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of
its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                          whether Council Directive 92/50/EEC (1) of 18 June 1992
                                                                      relating to the coordination of procedures for the award
                                                                      of public service contracts allows a company to prove that
The applicant claims that the Court should:                           it possesses the technical and financial qualifications laid
                                                                      down for admission to a published tendering procedure
                                                                      for the award of a public service contract by relying on
1. declare that, by requiring, as appropriate, the presence           the references of another person who is the sole
     of a Belgian associate on the board of an association            shareholder of one of the companies which own the first-
     or a minimum number of associates of Belgian                     mentioned company.'
     nationality which must, moreover, constitute a
     majority, before an association may be incorporated or           (1) OJ L 209 of 24.7.1992, p. 1.
     granted legal personality, the Kingdom of Belgium has
     failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6 of the EC
     Treaty;
2. order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                                                                      Action brought on 18 May 1998 by the Commission of
                                                                      the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                Luxembourg
                                                                                (Case C-188/98)
The legislation referred to, namely:
                                                                                (98/C 234/27)
Ð the Law of 25 October 1919 which confers legal
     personality on international associations whose objects          An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
     are philanthropic, religious, scientific, artistic or            brought before the Court of Justice of the European
     pedagogical',                                                    Communities on 18 May 1998 by the Commission of the
                                                                      European Communities, represented by Maria Patakia, of
                                                                      its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for
Ð the Law of 27 June 1921 which confers legal                        service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
     personality on non-profit-making associations . . .'             Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.


title: Judgment of the Court of 28 March 2000 in Case C-158/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Staatsgerichtshof des Landes Hessen): proceedings for a review of legality on an application by Georg Badeck and Others (Equal treatment of men and women — Employment in the administration — Measures for the promotion of women)

text:
C 149/10                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            27.5.2000
2. The third and fourth paragraphs of Article 454(3) of Regulation          Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a
     No 2454/93 must be interpreted as meaning that the compen-             judgment on 23 March 2000, in which it:
     sation mechanism established by that article also applies where
     the duties and other charges have been levied by the Member            1. Declares that, by failing to adopt within the period prescribed the
     State where the offence was discovered, even though it has been             laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to
     satisfactorily proved that the offence was actually committed in            comply with Articles 9 to 12 of Council Directive 93/15/EEC
     another Member State.                                                       of 5 April 1993 on the harmonisation of the provisions relating
                                                                                to the placing on the market and supervision of explosives for
3. The first paragraph of Article 454(3) and Article 455(1) of                   civil uses, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
     Regulation No 2454/93 must be interpreted as meaning that                   under that Directive;
     the customs authorities of the Member State where the offence or
     irregularity was discovered cannot impose on the holder of the         2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
     TIR carnet a time-limit of three months in which to provide
     satisfactory evidence as to where the offence or irregularity was      (1) OJ C 327 of 24.10.1998.
     actually committed. The time-limit under the first paragraph of
     Article 454(3) of Regulation No 2454/93 for producing
     evidence as to where the offence or irregularity was committed is
     one year.
(1) OJ C 312 of 10.10.1998 and OJ C 20 of 23.1.1999.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 28 March 2000
                                                                            in Case C-158/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                            the Staatsgerichtshof des Landes Hessen): proceedings for
                                                                            a review of legality on an application by Georg Badeck
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                                 and Others (1)
                            (Fifth Chamber)                                 (Equal treatment of men and women — Employment in the
                                                                              administration — Measures for the promotion of women)
                           of 23 March 2000
                                                                                (2000/C 149/17)
in Case C-327/98: Commission of the European Communi-
                       ties v French Republic (1)                                                (Language of the case: German)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                         Directive 93/15/EEC)                                                    in the European Court Reports)
                            (2000/C 149/16)                                 In Case C-158/97: Reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                                                                            the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Staatsgerichtshof
                                                                            des Landes Hessen, Germany, for a preliminary ruling in the
                      (Language of the case: French)                        proceedings for a review of legality on an application by Georg
                                                                            Badeck and Others, interveners: Hessischer Ministerpräsident
                                                                            and Landesanwalt beim Staatsgerichtshof des Landes Hessen,
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      on the interpretation of Article 2(1) and (4) of Council Directive
                     in the European Court Reports)                         76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of
                                                                            the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards
In Case C-327/98: Commission of the European Communities                    access to employment, vocational training and promotion,
(Agents: R. Wainwright and O. Couvert-Castéra) v French                     and working conditions (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40) — the Court,
Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and D. Wibaux) —                      composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho
application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt within              de Almeida and R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers),
the period prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative              P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet,
measures necessary to comply with Articles 9, 10, 11, 12 and                G. Hirsch, P. Jann and M. Wathelet, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate
14 of Council Directive 93/15/EEC of 5 April 1993 on the                    General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
harmonisation of the provisions relating to the placing on the              has given a judgment on 28 March 2000, in which it has ruled:
market and supervision of explosives for civil uses (OJ 1993
L 121, p. 20), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its                 Article 2(1) and (4) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February
obligations under the EC Treaty — the Court (Fifth Chamber),                1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for
composed of: D.A.O. Edward, President of the Chamber,                       men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training
L. Sevón (Rapporteur), and C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet and                and promotion, and working conditions does not preclude a national
P. Jann, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate General; D. Louterman-                 rule which
 ---pagebreak--- 27.5.2000                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 149/11
— in sectors of the public service where women are under-represented,       Tribunale di Genova (District Court, Genoa) (Italy) for a
    gives priority, where male and female candidates have equal             preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
    qualifications, to female candidates where that proves necessary        court between Vincenzo Farina and Credito Italiano SpA —
    for ensuring compliance with the objectives of the women’s              on the interpretation of Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty
    advancement plan, if no reasons of greater legal weight are             (now Articles 81 EC and 82 EC) in the light of certain uniform
    opposed, provided that that rule guarantees that candidatures are       bank rules which the Associazione Bancaria Italiana lays down
    the subject of an objective assessment which takes account of the       for its members in relation to the conclusion of contracts for
    specific personal situations of all candidates,                         the opening of current account credit facilities and all-
                                                                            embracing guarantee agreements — the Court of Justice
— prescribes that the binding targets of the women’s advancement            (Second Chamber), composed of R. Schintgen, President of the
    plan for temporary posts in the academic service and for academic       Chamber, G. Hirsch (Rapporteur) and M. Skouris, Judges;
    assistants must provide for a minimum percentage of women               D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,
    which is at least equal to the percentage of women among                made an order on 28 January 2000, the operative part of
    graduates, holders of higher degrees and students in each               which is as follows:
    discipline,
                                                                            1. Uniform bank rules, inasmuch as they allow banks, in respect of
— in so far as its objective is to eliminate under-representation of            contracts for the opening of current account credit facilities, to
    women, in trained occupations in which women are under-                     modify at any moment the interest rate by reason of changes on
    represented and for which the State does not have a monopoly of             the money market, by means of a notice posted on their premises
    training, allocates at least half the training places to women,             or by such method as they consider most appropriate, do not
    unless despite appropriate measures for drawing the attention of            have as their object or effect the restriction of competition within
    women to the training places available there are not enough                 the meaning of Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article
    applications from women,                                                    81(1) EC);
— where male and female candidates have equal qualifications,               2. Uniform bank rules relating to the all-embracing guarantee
    guarantees that qualified women who satisfy all the conditions              covering the opening of current account credit facilities and
    required or laid down are called to interview, in sectors in which          derogating from the general law applied to guarantees, such as
    they are under-represented,                                                 those at issue in the main proceedings, are not capable, taken as
                                                                                a whole, of affecting trade between Member States within the
— relating to the composition of employees’ representative bodies               meaning of Article 85(1) of the Treaty.
    and administrative and supervisory bodies, recommends that the
    legislative provisions adopted for its implementation take into         3. The application of those uniform bank rules does not constitute
    account the objective that at least half the members of those               an abuse of a dominant position within the meaning of Article
    bodies must be women.                                                       86 of the EC Treaty (now Article 82 EC).
                                                                            (1) OJ C 181 of 14.6.1997.
(1) OJ C 199 of 28.6.1997.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
                    ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                         (Second Chamber)
                                                                                of 9 March 2000
                         of 28 January 2000                                 in Case C-291/98 P: Sarrió SA v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
in Case C-138/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunale di Genova): Vincenzo Farina v Credito                         (Application for the re-opening of the written procedure and
                            Italiano SpA (1)                                                the opening of the oral procedure)
(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Manifestly                                                 (2000/C 149/19)
                          identical question)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                           (2000/C 149/18)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                                             in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-138/97: reference to the Court of Justice under                   In Case C-291/98 P Sarrió SA, established in Barcelona (Spain),
Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the                  represented by A. Mazzoni, of the Milan Bar, M. Siragusa, of


title: Case C-364/11: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 December 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Bíróság — Hungary) — Mostafa Abed El Karem El Kott, Chadi Amin A Radi, Hazem Kamel Ismail v Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal (Directive 2004/83/EC — Minimum standards for determining who qualifies for refugee status or subsidiary protection status — Stateless persons of Palestinian origin who have in fact availed themselves of assistance from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) — The right of those stateless persons to recognition as refugees on the basis of the second sentence of Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2004/83 — Conditions under which applicable — Cessation of UNRWA assistance ‘for any reason’ — Evidence — Consequences for the persons concerned seeking refugee status — Persons ‘ipso facto … entitled to the benefits of [the] Directive’ — Automatic recognition as a ‘refugee’ within the meaning of Article 2(c) of Directive 2004/83 and the granting of refugee status in accordance with Article 13 thereof)

text:
               16.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/8

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 December 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Bíróság — Hungary) — Mostafa Abed El Karem El Kott, Chadi Amin A Radi, Hazem Kamel Ismail v Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal
   (Case C-364/11) (1)

   (Directive 2004/83/EC - Minimum standards for determining who qualifies for refugee status or subsidiary protection status - Stateless persons of Palestinian origin who have in fact availed themselves of assistance from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) - The right of those stateless persons to recognition as refugees on the basis of the second sentence of Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2004/83 - Conditions under which applicable - Cessation of UNRWA assistance ‘for any reason’ - Evidence - Consequences for the persons concerned seeking refugee status - Persons ‘ipso facto … entitled to the benefits of [the] Directive’ - Automatic recognition as a‘refugee’ within the meaning of Article 2(c) of Directive 2004/83 and the granting of refugee status in accordance with Article 13 thereof)
   2013/C 46/14
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Fővárosi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Mostafa Abed El Karem El Kott, Chadi Amin A Radi, Hazem Kamel Ismail

      Defendant: Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal

      intervening party:
      ENSZ Menekültügyi Főbiztossága,

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Fovárosi Bíróság — Interpretation of Articles 12(1)(a) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted (OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12) — Stateless persons of Palestinian origin who have availed themselves of the protection of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) — Whether such a stateless person is ipso facto entitled to the benefits of Directive 2004/83/EC where the protection provided by that agency ceases — Circumstances under which the protection may be deemed to have come to an end — The meaning of being ‘entitled to the benefits of this Directive’

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The second sentence of Article 12(1)(a) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted must be interpreted as meaning that the cessation of protection or assistance from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the High Commission for Refugees (HCR) ‘for any reason’ includes the situation in which a person who, after actually availing himself of such protection or assistance, ceases to receive it for a reason beyond his control and independent of his volition. It is for the competent national authorities of the Member State responsible for examining the asylum application made by such a person to ascertain, by carrying out an assessment of the application on an individual basis, whether that person was forced to leave the area of operations of such an organ or agency, which will be the case where that person’s personal safety was at serious risk and it was impossible for that organ or agency to guarantee that his living conditions in that area would be commensurate with the mission entrusted to that organ or agency.

               2.

               The second sentence of Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2004/83 must be interpreted as meaning that, where the competent authorities of the Member State responsible for examining the application for asylum have established that the condition relating to the cessation of the protection or assistance provided by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) is satisfied as regards the applicant, the fact that that person is ipso facto ‘entitled to the benefits of [the] directive’ means that that Member State must recognise him as a refugee within the meaning of Article 2(c) of the directive and that person must automatically be granted refugee status, provided always that he is not caught by Article 12(1)(b) or (2) and (3) of the directive.

      (1)  OJ C 347, 26.11.2011.


title: Case C-159/06: Action brought on  21 March 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/33

         Action brought on 21 March 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland
   (Case C-159/06)
   (2006/C 131/62)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: U. Wölker, F. Simonetti and K. Nyberg, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Finland
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, with regard to the province of Åland, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (1) or in any case by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for implementation of the directive expired on 21 July 2004.

      (1)  OJ L 197, 21.7.2001, p. 30.


title: Case T-161/04: Action brought on 26 April 2004 by Gregorio Valero Jordana against Commission of the European Communities

text:
               26.6.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 168/12

         Action brought on 26 April 2004 by Gregorio Valero Jordana against Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-161/04)
   (2004/C 168/24)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 26 April 2004 by Gregorio Valero Jordana, residing in Brussels, represented by Massimo Merola, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of 10 February 2004 by which the European Commission refused the applicant access to the reserve list for general competition A7/A6 COM/A/637 and the individual decisions appointing officials in Grade A 6 from 5 October 1995;

               —

               order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant in these proceedings contests the defendant's decision denying him access to the reserve list for general competition A7/A6 COM/A/637 and the individual decisions appointing officials in Grade A 6 from 5 October 1995.
   In support of his claims, the applicant alleges, first, misapplication of the exception under Article 4(1)(b) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (1). That exception concerns privacy and the integrity of the individual, in particular in accordance with Community legislation regarding the protection of personal data. The applicant states, in that connection, that it cannot be considered that the disclosure of the documents requested could infringe the privacy of the persons whose names appear in them, since belonging to the civil service is not a matter falling within the scope of privacy.
   Moreover, to the extent that individual decisions regarding the appointment of European civil servants are in the public domain, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 5(b) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (2). The applicant also alleges failure to fulfil the obligation to provide reasons and breach of the principle of sound administration.

      (1)  OJL 145, 31/05/2000, p. 43.

      (2)  OJL 8, 12/01/2001, p. 1.


title: Action brought on 18 February 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against Silena SpA (Case C-39/98)

text:
C 137/6               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   2.5.98
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad              The applicant claims that the Court should:
der Nederlanden by order of that court of 11 February
1998 in the case of staatssecretaris van FinancieÈn against
                                                                   1. order Silena to pay ECU 15 000, together with interest
                     B. G. M. Verkooyen
                                                                       at the rate of ECU 4,17 per day from 10 May 1995 to
                        (Case C-35/98)                                 31 December 1996, totalling ECU 2 481,15, and ECU
                                                                       2,8 per day from 1 January 1997 until the day of
                         (98/C 137/11)
                                                                       actual payment;
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the             2. order Silena to pay the costs.
European Communities by order of the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
11 February 1998, received at the Court Registry on
13 February 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
staatssecretaris van FinancieÈn against B. G. M. Verkooyen         The action, brought under an arbitration clause, seeks
on the following questions.                                        payment of a sum of money owed by the defendant by
                                                                   way of transfer of the right to market the technical
                                                                   package' in the context of Agreement No 10433-94-09-
1. Must Article 1(1) of Council Directive 88/361/EEC (1)           TICRISPI. The Commission decided to terminate the
    in conjunction with point I(2) in Annex I to that              contract on the ground of the defendant's failure to
    Directive be interpreted as meaning that a restriction         perform. The effects of the termination of the contract are
    arising from a provision of the income tax legislation         governed by italian law.
    of a Member State which exempts shareholders, up to
    a certain amount, from liability to income tax on
    dividends, but restricts that exemption to dividends
    paid in respect of shares in companies established in
    that Member State, has been prohibited since 1 July
    1990 pursuant to Article 6(1) of that Directive?
                                                                   Action brought on 18 February 1998 by the Commission
                                                                   of the European Communities against TVR-Tecnologie
2. If the answer to question 1 is in the negative, must                                    Vetroresina SpA
    Articles 6 and/or 52 of the EC Treaty be interpreted as
                                                                                (Case C-40/98)
    meaning that a restriction of the kind referred to in
    that question is incompatible with one or both of                                       (98/C 137/13)
    those Articles?
                                                                   An action against TVR-Tecnologie Vetroresina SpA, whose
3. Do the answers to the questions set out above differ            registered office is in Rome, was brought before the Court
    depending on whether the person seeking the benefit            of Justice of the European Communities on 18 February
    of such an exemption is an ordinary shareholder or an          1998 by the Commission of the European Communities,
    employee (of a subsidiary company) who holds the               represented by Eugenio de March, Legal Adviser, assisted
    shares in question in the context of an employees'             by Alberto Dal Ferro, of the Vicenza Bar, with an address
    savings plan?                                                  for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez
                                                                   de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
(1) OJ L 178, 8.7.1998, p. 5.
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                   Ð order the defendant to repay ECU 211 307 together
                                                                       with interest, from 21 December 1991 until payment
                                                                       is actually made, at a rate of ECU 69,47 per day,
Action brought on 18 February 1998 by the Commission
     of the European Communities against Silena SpA
                                                                   Ð order the defendant to pay ECU 20 000 by way of
                        (Case C-39/98)                                 compensation for damage,
                         (98/C 137/12)
                                                                   Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
An action against Silena SpA, having its office in Cernusco
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
sul Naviglio (Italy), was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 18 February
1998 by the Commission of the European Communities,                The action, brought under an arbitration clause, seeks the
represented by Eugenio de March, Legal Adviser, acting as          repayment of an advance paid under contract 3440/1/0/
Agent, assisted by Alberto Dal Ferro, of the Vicenzo Bar,          187/91/6-BCR-I(30) for the completion of a project
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of         concerning the study of measuring systems for products
Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                 manufactured from composite materials. The Commission


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 29 April 2004 in Case T-308/02: SGL Carbon AG v Commission of the European Communities (Agreements — Fines — Rejection of request for facilities for payment — Annulment of measures — Inadmissibility)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/41

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 29 April 2004
   in Case T-308/02: SGL Carbon AG v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Agreements - Fines - Rejection of request for facilities for payment - Annulment of measures - Inadmissibility)
   (2004/C 118/89)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case T-308/02: SGL Carbon AG established in Wiesbaden (Germany), represented by M. Klusmann, lawyer v Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Wilms and W Mölls) – application for annulment of Commission decision of 24 July 2002 in so far as it rejects the applicant's request for facilities for the payment of the fine imposed in a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (COMP/E-1/36.490 – graphite electrodes) and imposes default interest in excess of 6.04 % – the Court (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President; W.H. Meij and J. Forwood, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 29 April 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal as inadmissible;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and those incurred by the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 31 of 8.2.2002.


title: Case T-275/16: Action brought on 27 May 2016 — Mubarak and others v Council

text:
               25.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/57

         Action brought on 27 May 2016 — Mubarak and others v Council
   (Case T-275/16)
   (2016/C 270/64)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Gamal Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak (Cairo, Egypt), Alaa Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak (Cairo), Heidy Mahmoud Magdy Hussein Rasekh (Cairo), Khadiga Mahmoud El Gammal (Cairo) (represented by B. Kennelly and J. Pobjoy, Barristers, and by G. Martin and M. Rushton, Solicitors)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/411 of 18 March 2016 amending Decision 2011/172/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ 2016 L 74, p. 40), insofar as it applies to the applicants;

               —

               declare that Article 1(1) of Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP of 21 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ 2011 L 76, p. 63) and Article 2(1) of Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 of 21 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ 2011 L 76, p. 4) are inapplicable insofar as they apply to the applicants, and, as a consequence, annul the Decision (CFSP) 2016/411, insofar as it applies to the applicants,

               —

               order the Council to pay the applicants’ costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on six pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to identify a proper legal base for Article 1(1) of Decision 2011/172/CFSP (the ‘Decision’) and Article 2(1) of Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 (the ‘Regulation’). There is no evidence that the Council undertook any review of the legal basis of Article 1(1) of the Decision in adopting Decision (CFSP) 2016/411 (the ‘Contested Decision’), notwithstanding the express obligation to do so under Article 5 of the Decision. The fact that Article 1(1) may have had a valid legal basis when it was first adopted on 21 March 2011 does not provide the provision with an enduring legal basis until 2016 or later.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging the violation of the applicants’ rights under Article 6, read with Articles 2 and 3, TEU and Articles 47 and 48 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights by the Council’s assumption that the judicial proceedings in Egypt complied with fundamental human rights.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Council has made manifest errors of assessment in considering that the criterion for listing the applicants in Article 1(1) of the Decision and Article 2(1) of the Regulation was satisfied.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to provide adequate reasons for re-designating the applicants.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council has violated the applicants’ right of defence and the right to good administration and effective judicial review. In particular, the Council failed to carefully and impartially examine whether the alleged reasons said to justify re-designation were well founded in light of the representations made by the applicants prior to re-designation.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Council has infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicants’ fundamental rights, including their right to protection of property and reputation. The impact of the Contested Decision on the applicants is far-reaching, both as regards to their property, and to their reputation worldwide. The Council has failed to demonstrate that the freezing of the applicants’ assets and economic resources is related to, or justified by, any legitimate aim, still less that it is proportionate to such an aim.


title: Case T-477/07: Action brought on 17 December 2007 — Cofra v Commission

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/43

         Action brought on 17 December 2007 — Cofra v Commission
   (Case T-477/07)
   (2008/C 64/69)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Cofra srl (Barletta, Italy) (represented by: A. Calabrese, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul Decision SG/E/3/MIB/mbp D(2007) 8992 of the Commission of 17 October 2007;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-417/07 Lodato Gennaro & Co.


title: Case C-551/03 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of  6 April 2006  — General Motors BV (formerly General Motors Nederland BV and Opel Nederland BV) v Commission of the European Communities (Appeals — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Article 81 EC — Regulations (EEC) No 123/85 and (EC) No 1475/95 — Distribution of Opel motor vehicles — Partitioning of the market — Restrictions on exports — Restrictive bonus policy — Fine — Guidelines for the calculation of fines)

text:
               17.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/5

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 April 2006 — General Motors BV (formerly General Motors Nederland BV and Opel Nederland BV) v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-551/03 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 81 EC - Regulations (EEC) No 123/85 and (EC) No 1475/95 - Distribution of Opel motor vehicles - Partitioning of the market - Restrictions on exports - Restrictive bonus policy - Fine - Guidelines for the calculation of fines)
   (2006/C 143/10)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellant: General Motors BV (hereinafter General Motors Nederland BV and Opel Nederland BV)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: W. Mölls and A. Whelan, Agents, assisted by J. Flynn)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 21 October 2003 in Case T-368/00 General Motors Nederland and Opel Nederland v Commission — Partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2000)2707 of 20 September 2000, concerning a proceeding under Article 81 EC (COMP/36.653 — Opel) and reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders General Motors BV to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 71, 20.3.2004.