title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht München by order of that court of 14 June 1995 in the case of Selma Kadiman v. Freistaat Bayern (Case C-351/95)

text:
20 . 1 . 96            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 16/5
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                   other, in order to determine whether there has been
                       ( Second Chamber)                               over-production at national level.
                    of 16 November 1995
                                                                       (>) OJ No C 233 , 20 . 8 . 1994 .
in Case C- 1 96/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling
made by the Judicial Committee of the Conseil d'État,
Luxembourg): Catherine Schiltz-Thilmann v. Minister for
                          Agriculture i 1 )
(Preliminary reference — Interpretation of Article S (c) of            Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerisches
Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 of the Council of 27 June                   Verwaltungsgericht Miinchen by order of that court of
1968 on the common organization ofthe market in milk and               14 June 1995 in the case of Selma Kadiman v. Freistaat
milk products — Additional levy — Reference quantity —                                                  Bayern
                             Exceeded)                                                          ( Case C-351/95 )
                           ( 96/C 16/09 )                                                           ( 96/C 16/10.)
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by an order of the Seventh
                (Language of the case: French)                         Chamber of the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht Miinchen
                                                                       ( Administrative Court of Bavaria, Munich ) of 14 June 1995 ,
                                                                       which was received at the Court Registry on 13 November
                                                                       1 995, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Selma Kadiman
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be           v. Freistaat Bayern on the following questions:
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                       1 . does the applicability of the first sentence of Article 7 of
                                                                             Decision No 1/80 of the EEC/Turkey Association
In Case C- 1 96/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                             Council on the development of the Association
                                                                              ('Decision No 1/80 ') presuppose that the family must
of the EC Treaty by the Judicial Committee of the Conseil                    still be living together at the time when the other
d'État, Luxembourg, for a preliminary ruling in the                          conditions are fulfilled ?
proceedings pending before that court between Catherine
Schiltz-Thilmann and the Minister of Agriculture — on
the interpretation of Article 5 ( c ) of Regulation ( EEC )            2 . Does the applicability of the first indent of the first
No 804/68 of the Council of 27 June 1968 on the common                        sentence of Article 7 of Decision No 1 /80 presuppose
organization of the market in milk and milk products ( OJ,                   three years' uninterrupted legal residence in a Member
English Special Edition 1968 (I), p. 176 ), as amended by                     State of the Community ?
Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 856/84 ( OJ No L 90, p. 10 )
and Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1298/85 ( OJ No L 137,               3 . Is a voluntary or forced intermediate stay of five months
p . 5 ), and Article 6 ( a ) of Council Regulation ( EEC )                    in Turkey to be counted towards the period of three
No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the                     years' legal residence within the meaning of the first
                                                                              indent of the first sentence of Article 7 of Decision
application of the levy referred to in Article 5 ( c ) of
                                                                              No 1 /80 ?
Regulation ( EEC ) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products
sector ( OJ No L 90, p. 13 ), as amended by Council
Regulation ( EEC ) No 590/85 ( OJ No L 68 , p. 1 ) — the
Court ( Second Chamber ), composed of: G. Hirsch,
President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini ( Rapporteur ) and
F. A. Schockweiler, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate-General;               Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 16 November 1995 ,             Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberverwaltungsgericht, by order
the operative part of which is as follows:                             of that court of 27 October 1995 , in the case of Matthias
                                                                                Witt v. Amt fiir Land- und Wasserwirtschaft
                                                                                ( Case C-356/95 )
Article 6 (a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of                                               ( 96/C 16/11 )
3 1 March 1 984 adopting general rules for the application of
the levy referred to in Article 5 (c) of Regulation (EEC)              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of
No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector, as amended             the European Communities by an order of the
 by Council Regulation (EEC) No 590/85 of 26 February                   Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberverwaltungsgericht (Higher
 1985, and Article 5 (c) (7) of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68             Administrative Court of the Land Schleswig-Holstein ),
 ofthe Council of27June 1968 on the common organization                Third Chamber, of 27 October 1995 , which was received at
 of the market in milk and milk products, as amended by                 the Court Registry on 21 November 1995 , for a preliminary
 Council Regulation (EEC) No 856/84 of 31 March 1984                    ruling in the case of Matthias Witt v . Amt fur Land- und
and subsequently by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1298/85                 Wasserwirtschaft on the following questions:
 of 23 May 1985, are to be interpreted as meaning that they
 do not allow aggregation of the reference quantities for               ( a ) Is   a   Member         State  entitled, under  the  first
 direct sales and for deliveries, which are independent ofeach                 subparagraph of Article 3 ( 1 ) of Council Regulation


title: Case T-177/10: Action brought on 19 April 2010 — Alcoa Trasformazioni v Commission

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/51

      Action brought on 19 April 2010 — Alcoa Trasformazioni v Commission
      (Case T-177/10)
      (2010/C 161/81)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Alcoa Trasformazioni Srl (Portoscuso, Italy) (represented by: M. Siragusa and T. Müller-Ibold, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the Commission’s decision of 19 November 2009 (C(2009) 8112) in so far as it concerns State aid C 36/B/2006 (ex NN 38/2006) allegedly granted by Italy to Alcoa Trasformazioni Srl;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The present action for annulment concerns the decision adopted by the European Commission on 19 November 2009 with regard to Alcoa Trasformazioni Srl (‘the contested decision’). (1)

      That decision categorised the prolongation of the tariff scheme applicable to the Alcoa installations in Sardinia and the Veneto, provided for under Article 11(11) of Decree No 35 of 14 March 2005, (2) with effect from 1 January 2006, as new State aid incompatible with the common market, and ordered its partial recovery.
      It should be borne in mind in that regard that since 1996 a preferential tariff has been applied to the applicant for the electricity for its two primary aluminium smelters located respectively in Sardinia and the Veneto. That tariff was brought to the knowledge of the Commission in the context of the privatisation of Alumix, an aluminium producer controlled by the Italian State, which was later sold to the applicant. In 1996, the Commission reached the conclusion that the tariff in question did not constitute State aid.
      In the contested decision, the Commission maintains that, following a number of changes, the tariff at issue is a measure which is completely different from the measure examined in 1996.
      According to the applicant, the contested decision is unlawful in view of the following:

                  —

                  infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU in that it found the tariff for the electricity purchased by Alcoa for its two primary aluminium smelters, located respectively in Sardinia and the Veneto, as ‘aid’, even though it did not confer any advantage on the recipient;

                  —

                  infringement of Article 107(3) TFEU in that it miscalculated the worth of the aid;

                  —

                  infringement of Article 107(3) TFEU in that it erred in finding that the tariff in question constituted operating aid, incompatible with the Guidelines on State aid for regional purposes;

                  —

                  breach of the principle of sound administration and of Article 107(3) TFEU in that, in the course of the procedure, the Commission radically changed its own assessment regarding the impact caused by the introduction of the market mechanism which the Commission itself had proposed for Sardinia, without giving any explanation or warning and, as if that were not enough, at the end of a faulty investigation;

                  —

                  breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and infringement of Article 108 TFEU in that it categorised the tariff as ‘new’ aid and as ‘existing’ aid.

            Lastly, the applicant maintains that, in adopting the contested decision, the Commission breached a number of essential procedural requirements.

         (1)  Commission Decision of 19 November 2009 concerning State Aid No C 38/A/2004 (ex NN 58/2004) and No C 36/B/2006 (ex NN 38/2006) implemented by Italy in favour of Alcoa Trasformazioni Srl.

         (2)  Laying down ‘Urgent provisions under the Action plan for economic, social and territorial development’ and converted into law, with amendments, by Law No 80 of 14 May 2005.


title: Case T-422/10: Action brought on 15 September 2010 — Emme v Commission

text:
               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/35

         Action brought on 15 September 2010 — Emme v Commission
   (Case T-422/10)
   ()
   2010/C 317/64
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Emme Holding SpA (Pescara, Italy) (represented by: G. Visconti, E. Vassallo di Castiglione, M. Siragusa, M. Beretta and P. Ferrari, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul or reduce the fine imposed by the Commission on Emme Holding by decision of 30 June 2010 (Case COMP/38.344 — Pre-stressing steel).

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The decision contested in the present case is the same as that in Case T-385/10 ArcellorMittal Wire France and Others v Commission.
   In particular, the applicant submits that:

               —

               the attribution to the applicant of a single and continuous infringement instituted by all the European cartels (Club Europa) and all the national/regional cartels (Club Italiano, Club España and the Accordo Meridionale) is unjustified. The applicant has never in fact participated (actively or passively) at European level in the alleged infringement. Similarly, Trame was unaware of any regional or national cartels operating in countries other than Italy.

               —

               the decision takes account of both stranded wire (7 strands) and braided wire (2-3 strands). However, the applicant submits that braided wire has never been the subject of a cartel in connection with Club Italia. The turnover generated by that product should therefore not be taken into account in calculating the fine.

         The applicant also seeks a reduction of the fine, on the ground that its participation in the alleged infringement was marginal, and on account of its inability to pay.


title: Case T-379/00: Action brought on 20 December 2000 by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings Inc. against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 79/24                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     10.3.2001
Action brought on 20 December 2000 by R.J. Reynolds                      Furthermore, the applicant submits that the Community’s
Tobacco Holdings Inc. against the Council of the European                competence to act in Member States to counter fraud in
Union and the Commission of the European Communities                     cooperation with the Member States does not permit it to
                                                                         launch civil proceedings in the United States; measures to
                                                                         counter fraud must be adopted according to the procedures
                          (Case T-379/00)                                laid down in Article 280(4) EC, a procedure which was not
                                                                         followed in respect of the contested decisions.
                           (2001/C 79/42)
                                                                         The applicant contends that, in launching the proceedings in
                                                                         the United States, the Community is circumventing the
                                                                         applicable procedures for the levying and recoverability of
                   (Language of the case: English)                       unpaid customs duties and the penalties which could be
                                                                         imposed for avoidance, that the applicant’s right to be heard
                                                                         has been infringed, and that the general principles of legal
An action against the Council of the European Union and the              certainty, the rights of defence, due process and proportionality
Commission of the European Communities was brought                       have been breached. Finally, the applicant maintains that
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities           the defendants have misused their powers by adopting the
on 20 December 2000 by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings                    contested decisions.
Inc., a company incorporated in the state of Delaware (USA),
represented by Onno W. Brouwer and Paul Lomas of Fresh-
fields Bruckhaus Deringer.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         Action brought on 20 December 2000 by Japan Tobacco
—     annul the Commission’s decision, which became known
                                                                         Inc. against the Council of the European Union and the
      to the applicant on 6 November 2000, to commence the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
      New York RICO Proceedings in the name of the European
      Community against the applicant and/or to instruct
      others to do so; and, if it exists,                                                         (Case T-380/00)
—     annul the Council’s decision, which never became known                                       (2001/C 79/43)
      to the applicant, to commence the New York RICO
      Proceedings in the name of the European Community
      against the applicant and/or to mandate or instruct others                            (Language of the case: English)
      to do so;
                                                                         An action against the Council of the European Union and the
—     order the Commission and/or the Council to pay the cost            Commission of the European Communities was brought
      of these proceedings, including those of the applicant and         before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
      any third parties.                                                 on 20 December 2000 by Japan Tobacco Inc., a company
                                                                         incorporated in Japan, represented by Onno W. Brouwer
                                                                         and Paul Lomas of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Brussels
                                                                         (Belgium).
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant is a defendant in legal proceedings brought by             —    annul the Commission’s decision, which became known
the European Community before a United States court, in                       to the applicant on 6 November 2000, to commence the
which the Community seeks compensatory, treble and punitive                   New York RICO Proceedings in the name of the European
damages for losses allegedly suffered for unpaid VAT, customs                 Community against the applicant and/or to instruct
duties etc. which, it is alleged, the Community has not received              others to do so; and, if it exists,
as a result of smuggling of cigarettes into the European Union.
                                                                         —    annul the Council’s decision, which never became known
                                                                              to the applicant, to commence the New York RICO
The applicant submits that the Community has no competence                    Proceedings in the name of the European Community
to levy or collect customs duties or VAT directly or indirectly               against the applicant and/or to mandate or instruct others
in civil damages proceedings. All competence to levy or collect               to do so;
such taxes resides exclusively in the Member States and is
enforceable under procedures established in each of them                 —    order the Commission and/or the Council to pay the cost
which do not include the use of civil damages claims in lieu of               of these proceedings, including those of the applicant and
tax collection.                                                               any third parties.


title: Case T-411/06: Action brought on 22 December 2006 — SO.GE.L.M.A. v EAR

text:
               24.2.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/40

         Action brought on 22 December 2006 — SO.GE.L.M.A. v EAR
   (Case T-411/06)
   (2007/C 42/71)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: SO.GE.L.M.A. (Scandicci, Italy) (represented by: E. Cappelli, P. De Caterini, A. Bandini and A. Gironi, avvocati)

      Defendant: European Agency for Reconstruction
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decisions of the EAR cancelling the works tender procedure ‘Restoring of Unhindered Navigation (removal of unexploded ordnance) in the Inland Waterway Transport System, Republic of Serbia, Serbia and Montenegro’ (Publication Reference No: EuropeAid/120694/D/W/YU, Project No 05SER01 04 01) and launching a new tender procedure, communicated by AER letter of 9 October 2006, Prot. D (06)DG/MIL/EP 2715 and AER letter of 14 December 2006, Prot. DG/mie/3313, together with all other prior or connected acts, including the decision excluding the applicant, and, in any case, order the European Agency for Reconstruction to pay damages to the applicant in the amount specified in the application;

               —

               order the European Agency for Reconstruction to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The object of the tender procedure at issue in the present case was the award of a public works contract for works consisting in the identification and clearance of unexploded military ordnance left over from the aerial bombardment carried out by NATO in 1999, with a view to re-opening the waterways of the Danube and the Sava for inland navigation.
   After its tender had been found to be the most suitable, the applicant received a first request for clarifications, which were provided without delay. In particular, precise reasons were given for the presence, as leader of the aquatic survey team, of a person who had high qualifications but whose work experience fell short of that specified in the call for tenders.
   Following professional contacts with a consultancy which had provided the European Agency for Reconstruction with advice in respect of the tender procedure in question, on the basis of which the applicant was led to expect a positive outcome, the applicant was informed that the tender procedure had been cancelled for lack of tenders which were technically suitable, and it became clear that there was an intention to issue a new call for tenders.
   In support of its claims, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 41 of Directive 2004/18 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (1) and, more generally, breach of the principles that govern Community legislation on public procurement procedures, in so far as the annulment of the tendering procedure in question was the result of a choice made without careful reflection and without an in-depth assessment of the public interest to be safeguarded. Secondly, the applicant alleges failure to comply with the obligation to state reasons.

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 134, 30.4.2004, p. 114.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 14 March 1996 in Case C-239/95: Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Transposition of Directive 90/385/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to active implantable medical devices)

text:
22 . 6 . 96               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 180/5
1 . Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed                   Council Directive 90/385/EEC of 20 June 1990 on the
      period the laws, regulations and administrative                          approximation ofthe laws ofthe Member States relating
      provisions necessary to comply with Commission                           to active implantable medical devices, the Kingdom of
      Directive 93/67/EEC of 20 July 1993 laying down the                      Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      principles for assessment of risks to man and the                        Article 16 of that Directive.
      environment of substances notified in accordance with
      Council Directive 67/548/EEC, the Italian Republic has
      failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8 of Directive       2 . Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
      93/67/EEC.
                                                                          (') OJ No C 229 , 2 . 9 . 1995 .
2 . Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
f 1 ) OJ No C 229 , 2 . 9 . 1995 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 19 March 1996
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                          in    Case C-25/94 : Commission of the European
                            ( Sixth Chamber)                                   Communities v. Council of the European Union (^
                          of 14 March 1996                                (FAO — Fishery Agreement — Right to vote — Member
in Case        C-239/95 : Commission of the European                                          States — Community)
            Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium ( l )                                                 ( 96/C 180/10 )
 (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
 Transposition of Directive 90/385/EEC on the
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to                                (Language of the case: French)
               active implantable medical devices)
                               ( 96/C 180/09 )
                                                                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
                  (Language of the case: French)
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be             In Case C-25/94 : Commission of the European
           published in the European Court Reports)                       Communities ( Agent: Jorn Sack ) v . Council of the European
                                                                          Union ( Agents : Rudiger Bandilla and Felix van Craeyenest ),
                                                                          supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain and
In Case C-239/95 : Commission of the European                             Northern Ireland ( Agents : John E. Collins and Richard
 Communities ( Agent: Hendrik van Lier ) v. Kingdom of                    Plender QC ) — application for annulment of the decision of
Belgium ( Agent: Jan Devadder ) — application for a                       the Fisheries Council of 22 November 1993 giving the
declaration that, by failing to adopt and, in the alternative,            Member States the right to vote in the United Nations Food
to communicate to the Commission the measures necessary                   and Agriculture Organization for the adoption of the
to transpose Council Directive 90/385/EEC of 20 June 1990                 Agreement to Promote Compliance with International
on the approximation of the laws of the Member States                     Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing
relating to active implantable medical devices ( OJ No L 189,             Vessels on the High Seas — the Court, composed of G. C.
 1990, p . 17 ), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its          Rodriguez Iglesias, President, J. -P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch
obligations under that Directive and in particular Article 16             ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, F. A. Schockweiler
thereof — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of C. N.                   ( Rapporteur), J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn,
Kakouris, President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch, G. F.                      C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, H. Ragnemalm and L. Sevon,
Mancini, F. A. Schockweiler and J. L. Murray ( Rapporteur ),              Judges;      F.    G. Jacobs, Advocate-General;             D.
Judges; Advocate-General, D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer;                         Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the
 Registrar, R. Grass, gave a judgment on 14 March 1996, in                Registrar, gave a. judgment on 19 March 1996 , in which
which it :                                                                it :
 1 . Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations              1 . Annuls the decision of the Fisheries Council of
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with                   22 November 1 993 giving the Member States the right


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 26 April 2005 in Joined Cases T-110/03, T-150/03 and T-405/03 Jose Maria Sison v Council of the European Union (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to Council decisions concerning the fight against terrorism — Exceptions relating to the protection of the public interest — Public security — International relations — Partial access — Statement of reasons — Rights of the defence)

text:
               9.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/15

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 26 April 2005
   in Joined Cases T-110/03, T-150/03 and T-405/03 Jose Maria Sison v Council of the European Union (1)

   (Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to Council decisions concerning the fight against terrorism - Exceptions relating to the protection of the public interest - Public security - International relations - Partial access - Statement of reasons - Rights of the defence)
   (2005/C 171/26)
   Language of the case: English
   In Joined Cases T-110/03, T-150/03 and T-405/03: Jose Maria Sison, residing in Utrecht (Netherlands), represented by J. Fermon, A. Comte, H. Schultz and D. Gurses, lawyers, against Council of the European Union, represented by M. Vitsentzatos, M. Bauer and M. Bishop — applications for annulment of the three Council decisions of 21 January, 27 February and 2 October 2003 refusing access to documents relating to Council Decisions 2002/848/EC, 2002/974/EC and 2003/480/EC of 28 October 2002, 12 December 2002 and 27 June 2003 respectively implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decisions 2002/460/EC, 2002/848/EC and 2002/974/EC respectively — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, N.J. Forwood and S. Papasavvas, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 26 April 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the applications in Cases T-110/03 and T-150/03 as unfounded;

               2.

               Dismisses part of the application in Case T-405/03 as inadmissible and the remainder as unfounded;

               3.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs in Cases T-110/03, T-150/03 and T-405/03.

      (1)  OJ C 146 of 21.6.2003.


title: Order of the Court of the Justice of 11 July 2003 in Case C-161/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commission de conciliation et d'expertise douanière): Administration des douanes v Centrale d'achat française pour l'outre-mer SA (CAFOM), Samsung Electronics France (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Court's lack of jurisdiction)

text:
C 7/18                    EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                           10.1.2004
Council Directive 78/687/EEC of 25 July 1978 concerning the                     The Court of Justice of the European Communities clearly has no
coordination of provisions laid down by law, regulation or adminis-             jurisdiction to reply to the questions referred by the Commission de
trative action in respect of the activities of dental practitioners, as         conciliation et d’expertise douanière in its decision of 18 March
amended by the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the                2003.
Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of
Sweden and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European
Union is founded, properly construed, precludes a national rule                 (1) OJ C 135 of 7.6.2003.
containing a general authorisation for doctors who have not completed
the training required by Article 1 of that directive to carry out the
activities of a dental practitioner, irrespective of the title under which
those activities are carried out.
(1) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.
                                                                                Appeal brought on 20 October 2003 by P&O European
                                                                                Ferries (Vizcaya) SA against the judgment delivered
                                                                                on 5 August 2003 by the First Chamber (Extended
                                                                                Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                                European Communities in joined cases T-116/01 between
                                                                                P&O European Ferries (Vizcaya) SA, supported by Dipu-
          ORDER OF THE COURT OF THE JUSTICE                                     tación Foral de Vizcaya, and the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities and T-118/01 between Diputa-
                            of 11 July 2003                                     ción Foral de Vizcaya, supported by P&O European
                                                                                Ferries (Vizcaya) SA, and the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
in Case C-161/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling by
the Commission de conciliation et d’expertise douanière):
Administration des douanes v Centrale d’achat française                                                  (Case C-442/03 P)
pour l’outre-mer SA (CAFOM), Samsung Electronics
                                France (1)
                                                                                (2004/C 7/31)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Court’s lack of
                              jurisdiction)
                                                                                An appeal against the judgment delivered on 5 August 2003
                             (2004/C 7/30)                                      by the First Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of
                                                                                First Instance of the European Communities in joined cases
                      (Language of the case: French)                            T-116/01 (1) between P&O European Ferries (Vizcaya) SA,
                                                                                supported by Diputación Foral de Vizcaya, and the Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities and T-118/01 (2)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published          between Diputación Foral de Vizcaya, supported by P&O
                     in the European Court Reports)                             European Ferries (Vizcaya) SA, and the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities, was brought before the Court of
                                                                                Justice of the European Communities on 20 October 2003 by
                                                                                P&O European Ferries (Vizcaya) SA, established in Bilbao
In Case C-161/03: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC                   (Spain), represented by Sir Jeremy Lever QC and M. Pickford,
by the Commission de conciliation et d’expertise douanière                      Barristers, and J. Ellison, Solicitor.
(France) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between
Administration des douanes and Centrale d’achat française
pour l’outre-mer SA (CAFOM), Samsung Electronics France —                       The Appellant claims that the Court should:
on the interpretation of Article 27 of Protocol No 4 annexed
to the Europe Agreement between the European Communities
and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of                   1.    make an order setting aside the Court of First Instance’s
Hungary, of the other part, concluded and approved in the                             judgment of 5 August 2003 and remitting the questions
name of the European Communities by Decision 93/743/                                  set out at paragraph 13 of the appeal for determination
Euratom, ECSC, EC of the Council and the Commission of                                by the Court of First Instance;
13 December 1993 (OJ 1993 L 348, p. 1) — the Court,
composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puisso-                  2.    make an order that the Commission pay the Appellant’s
chet, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen and C.W.A. Timmermans,                                costs of this appeal; and
Presidents of Chambers, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur),
D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken,                   3.    make an order setting aside the order of the Court of First
N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and A. Rosas,                          Instance of 5 August 2003 that the Appellant pay the
Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,                         Commission’s costs, and reserving reconsideration of
made an order on 11 July 2003 of which the operative part is                          those costs for the Court of First Instance when the case
as follows:                                                                           is remitted to it.


title: Case T-94/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 29 June 2009 — Athinaïki Techniki AE v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Complaint — Decision to take no further action on the complaint — Referral back to the Court of First Instance after setting aside — Withdrawal of the contested decision — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               26.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 233/14

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 29 June 2009 — Athinaïki Techniki AE v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-94/05) (1)

   (State aid - Complaint - Decision to take no further action on the complaint - Referral back to the Court of First Instance after setting aside - Withdrawal of the contested decision - No need to adjudicate)
   2009/C 233/24
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Athinaïki Techniki AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agent)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Athens Resort Casino AE Symmetochon (Marrousi, Greece) (represented by: F. Carlin, Barrister and N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 2 December 2004 to take no further action on the applicant’s complaint related to alleged State aid granted by the Hellenic Republic to the Hyatt Regency consortium in connection with the ‘Casino Mont Parnès’ public contract.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate in the present action.

               2.

               The Commission of the European Communities shall bear all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2005.


title: Case C-356/09: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 November 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Pensionsversicherungsanstalt v Christine Kleist (Social policy — Equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation — Directive 76/207/EEC — Article 3(1)(c) — National rules facilitating the dismissal of workers who have acquired the right to draw their retirement pension — Objective of promoting employment of younger persons — National rules setting the age conferring entitlement to a retirement pension at 60 years for women and 65 years for men)

text:
               15.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/14

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 November 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Pensionsversicherungsanstalt v Christine Kleist
   (Case C-356/09) (1)

   (Social policy - Equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation - Directive 76/207/EEC - Article 3(1)(c) - National rules facilitating the dismissal of workers who have acquired the right to draw their retirement pension - Objective of promoting employment of younger persons - National rules setting the age conferring entitlement to a retirement pension at 60 years for women and 65 years for men)
   2011/C 13/23
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Pensionsversicherungsanstalt

      Respondent: Christine Kleist

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 3(1)(c) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40), as amended by Directive 2002/73/EC — National rules setting the retirement age at 60 years for women and 65 years for men and facilitating the dismissal of employees when they reach that age — Dismissal by a public employer of a woman aged 60 years and entitled to retire, on the grounds of a desire to promote the employment of younger people

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 3(1)(c) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions, as amended by Directive 2002/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002, must be interpreted as meaning that national rules which, in order to promote access of younger persons to employment, permit an employer to dismiss employees who have acquired the right to draw their retirement pension, when that right is acquired by women at an age five years younger than the age at which it is acquired by men, constitute direct discrimination on the grounds of sex prohibited by that directive.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 21.11.2009.


title: Case C-420/06: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 March 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Schwerin (Germany)) — Rüdiger Jager v Amt für Landwirtschaft Bützow (Common agricultural policy — Regulations (EC) No 1254/1999 and (EC) No 1782/2003 — Beef and veal — Integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes — Regulations (EEC) No 3887/92, (EC) No 2419/2001 and (EC) No 796/2004 — Applications for livestock aid — Suckler cow premium — Irregularities — Non-compliance with the provisions concerning the identification and registration of unclaimed bovine animals — Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 — Exclusion from the benefit of aid — Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 — Principle of retroactive application of the more lenient penalty)

text:
               26.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/4

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 March 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Schwerin (Germany)) — Rüdiger Jager v Amt für Landwirtschaft Bützow
   (Case C-420/06) (1)

   (Common agricultural policy - Regulations (EC) No 1254/1999 and (EC) No 1782/2003 - Beef and veal - Integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes - Regulations (EEC) No 3887/92, (EC) No 2419/2001 and (EC) No 796/2004 - Applications for ‘livestock’ aid - Suckler cow premium - Irregularities - Non-compliance with the provisions concerning the identification and registration of unclaimed bovine animals - Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 - Exclusion from the benefit of aid - Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 - Principle of retroactive application of the more lenient penalty)
   (2008/C 107/06)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Verwaltungsgericht Schwerin
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Rüdiger Jager

      Defendant: Amt für Landwirtschaft Bützow
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Schwerin — Interpretation of Article 2(2) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1) — Refusal of an application for livestock aid on account of a discrepancy of more than 20 % found between the number of animals declared and the number established during a check — Retroactive application of subsequent less severe administrative penalties concerning livestock aid which applied only after the abolition of the livestock aid scheme in the Member State concerned
   Operative part of the judgment
   The second sentence of Article 2(2) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests is to be interpreted as meaning that the provisions laid down by Articles 66 and 67 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of cross compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, as amended and corrected by Commission Regulation (EC) No 239/2005 of 11 February 2005, may not be applied retroactively to an application for ‘livestock’ aid falling within the scope ratione temporis of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 of 23 December 1992 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2801/1999 of 21 December 1999, which gave rise to an exclusion from the benefit of aid under Article 10c of that regulation.

      (1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.


C 191/32               EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                     10.8.2002
Action brought on 1 July 2002 by Anselmo Briganti                           change the minimum number of points required from that
    against Commission of the European Communities                          notified in the competition notice.
                         (Case T-195/02)                                    In support of his arguments, the applicant claims:
                         (2002/C 191/54)                                    —     the selection board’s errors were such as to distort the
                                                                                outcome of the two tests.
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                         —     failure to make an accurate, fair and equitable assessment
                                                                                of the abilities of the candidates and breach of the
                                                                                principles of equality and equal treatment.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                  —     breach of contractual obligations by the selection board.
European Communities on 1 July 2002 by Anselmo Briganti,
represented by Giovanni Sciusco, avvocato.                                  —     breach of the principle of legitimate expectations.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the selection board excluding the
      applicant from the subsequent stage of competition                           Removal from the register of Case T-152/98 (1)
      COM/A/11/01 for failing to obtain the minimum number
      of points required for Test A;                                                                (2002/C 191/55)
—     annul the evaluation criterion established by the selection                              (Language of the case: Italian)
      board following the discovery of errors committed by the
      board itself with regard to question 38 of Test A under
      ‘Justice and Internal Affairs’ and Question 3 in Test C;              By order of 16 May 2002 the President of the Fourth Chamber
                                                                            of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
—     annul the section on ‘Justice and Internal Affairs’ of Test A         ordered the removal from the register of Case T-152/98:
      of competition COM/A/11/01;                                           Azienda Agricola ‘Ponte S. Pietro’ di Zardi Vincenzo e Clara v
                                                                            Council of the European Union.
—     annul all the acts of the selection board relating to the
      section on ‘Justice and Internal Affairs’ of competition
      COM/A/11/01 after the test had taken place;                           (1) OJ C 358 of 21.11.1998.
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                    Removal from the register of Case T-165/99 (1)
The applicant in the present case, who took part in the pre-                                        (2002/C 191/56)
selection test for COM/A/11/01 (Principal administrators —
Justice and internal affairs section), contests the selection                                 (Language of the case: English)
board’s decision to exclude him from the subsequent stage of
the competition for failing to pass Test A.
                                                                            By order of 16 May 2002 the President of the Fourth Chamber
The applicant claims that he received at the same time a letter             of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
from the selection board after the test had taken place stating             ordered the removal from the register of Case T-165/99:
that it had discovered mistakes in Question 38 of the section               Omega Air Limited and Seven Q Seven Inc. v Council of the
on ‘Justice and Internal Affairs’ of Test A and Question 3 of               European Union.
Test C; the board then cancelled those questions and calculated
the marks on the basis of the remaining questions but did not               (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.


title: Case C-76/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky — Slovak Republic) — Ingsteel spol. s r. o., Metrostav a.s. v Úrad pre verejné obstarávanie (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2004/18/EC — Article 47(1), (4) and (5) — Economic and financial standing of the tenderer — Directives 89/665/EEC and 2007/66/EC — Judicial review of a decision to exclude a tenderer from a tendering procedure — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47 — Right to an effective remedy)

text:
               4.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 293/5

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky — Slovak Republic) — Ingsteel spol. s r. o., Metrostav a.s. v Úrad pre verejné obstarávanie
   (Case C-76/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 2004/18/EC - Article 47(1), (4) and (5) - Economic and financial standing of the tenderer - Directives 89/665/EEC and 2007/66/EC - Judicial review of a decision to exclude a tenderer from a tendering procedure - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy))
   (2017/C 293/06)
   Language of the case: Slovak

      Referring court

   Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Ingsteel spol. s r. o., Metrostav a.s.

      Defendant: Úrad pre verejné obstarávanie

      Intervener: Slovenský futbalový zväz

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 47(1)(a) and (4) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts must be interpreted as meaning that a contracting authority may exclude a tenderer from a tendering procedure on the ground that it does not fulfil the criterion regarding economic and financial standing laid down in the contract notice with respect to the provision of a statement given by a bank undertaking to grant credit in the amount specified in the contract notice and to guarantee that that amount will be available to the tenderer throughout the period of performance of the contract.

               2.

               Article 47(5) of Directive 2004/18 must be interpreted as meaning that, when a contract notice requires the provision of a statement given by a bank undertaking to grant credit in the amount specified in the contract notice and to guarantee that that amount will be available to the tenderer throughout the duration of the performance of the contract, the fact that the banks approached by the tenderer consider themselves unable to provide the tenderer with a statement in the terms specified by the contract notice may constitute a ‘valid reason’, within the meaning of that article, allowing the tenderer, where appropriate, to prove its economic and financial standing by any other document considered appropriate by the contracting authority, provided that it was objectively impossible for the tenderer to provide the references required by the contracting authority, which is a matter for the referring court to determine.

      (1)  OJ C 270, 25.7.2017.


title: Case T-273/14: Judgment of the General Court of 3 June 2015 — Lithomex v OHIM — Glaubrecht Stingel (LITHOFIX) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark LITHOFIX — Earlier national and international word marks LITHOFIN — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of signs — Similarity of goods — No obligation for an examination to be carried out in relation to all the goods covered by the earlier mark — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               20.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/40

         Judgment of the General Court of 3 June 2015 — Lithomex v OHIM — Glaubrecht Stingel (LITHOFIX)
   (Case T-273/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark LITHOFIX - Earlier national and international word marks LITHOFIN - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of signs - Similarity of goods - No obligation for an examination to be carried out in relation to all the goods covered by the earlier mark - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 236/54)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Lithomex ApS (Langeskov, Denmark) (represented by: L. Ullmann, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Bonne, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Glaubrecht Stingel GmbH & Co. KG (Wendlingen, Germany) (represented by: T. Krüger, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 February 2014 (Case R 2280/2012-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Glaubrecht Stingel GmbH & Co. KG and Lithomex ApS.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Lithomex ApS to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 253, 4.8.2014.


title: Case T-403/03: Order of the Court of First Instance of 7 January 2008 — Marmara Import-Export v OHIM — Marmara Zeytin Tarim Satis (marmara) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/37

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 7 January 2008 — Marmara Import-Export v OHIM — Marmara Zeytin Tarim Satis (marmara)
   (Case T-403/03) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of opposition - No need to adjudicate)
   (2008/C 64/60)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Marmara Import-Export GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: A. von Arnswaldt and G. Rother, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Weberndorfer, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Marmara Zeytin Tarim Satis Kooperatifleri Birligi (Bursa, Turkey) (represented by: A. Andorfer-Erhard, lawyer)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 October 2003 (Case R 515/2002-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Marmara Import-Export GmbH and Marmara Zeytin Tarim Satis Kooperatifleri Birligi.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court orders:

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The applicant and the intervener shall bear their own costs and pay one half each of the defendant's costs.

      (1)  OJ C 71, 20.3.2004.


title: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 24 July 2003 in Case C-166/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Alcácer do Sal): Daniel Fernando Messejana Viegas v Companhia de Seguros Zurich SA, Mitsubishi Motors de Portugal SA (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Answer which may be clearly deduced from existing case-law — Second Directive 84/5/EEC — Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of motor vehicles — Types of civil liability — Minimum amounts of cover)

text:
C 226/2                 EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                                20.9.2003
      —    third, the compensation does not exceed what is necessary to      Marion Roussel Ltd, established in Denham (United Kingdom),
           cover all or part of the costs incurred in discharging the        Hoechst Marion Roussel SA, established in Brussels (Belgium),
           public service obligations, taking into account the relevant      Marion Merrell SA, established in Puteaux (France), Marion
           receipts and a reasonable profit for discharging those            Merrell SA, established in Barcelona (Spain), Sanova Pharma
           obligations;                                                      GmbH, established in Vienna (Austria), Temmler Pharma GmbH
                                                                             & Co.KG, established in Marburg (Germany), Schuck GmbH,
      —    fourth, where the undertaking which is to discharge public        established in Schwaig (Germany), Laboratoires Roussell Lda,
           service obligations is not chosen in a public procurement         established in Mem Martins (Portugal), Laboratoires Roussell
           procedure, the level of compensation needed has been deter-       Diamant SARL, established in Puteaux, Roussel Iberica SA,
           mined on the basis of an analysis of the costs which a            established in Barcelona, (represented by B. Sträter and
           typical undertaking, well run and adequately provided with        M. Ambrosius), Gerot Pharmazeutika GmbH, established in
           means of transport so as to be able to meet the necessary         Vienna, (represented by K. Grigkar), Cambridge Healthcare
           public service requirements, would have incurred in dischar-      Supplies Ltd, established in Rackhearth (United Kingdom),
           ging those obligations, taking into account the relevant          (represented by M. D. Vaughan, QC, K. Bacon, barrister, and
           receipts and a reasonable profit for discharging the              S. Davis, solicitor), and Laboratoires pharmaceutiques Trenker
           obligations.                                                      SA, established in Brussels, (represented by L. Defalque and
                                                                             X. Leurquin), the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias,
                                                                             President, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen, C.W.
3.   Article 77 of the EC Treaty (now Article 73 EC) cannot be
                                                                             A. Timmermans (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.
     applied to public subsidies which compensate for the additional
                                                                             O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann (Rapporteur), V. Skouris,
     costs incurred in discharging public service obligations without
                                                                             F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and
     taking into account Regulation No 1191/69, as amended by
                                                                             A. Rosas, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; M. Múgica
     Regulation No 1893/91.
                                                                             Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
                                                                             a judgment on 24 July 2003, in which it:
(1) OJ C 273 of 23.9.2000.                                                   1.   Dismisses the appeal;
                                                                             2.   Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the
                                                                                costs of these proceedings and those relating to the application for
                                                                                interim relief.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                             (1) OJ C 70 of 22.3.2003.
                           of 24 July 2003
in Case C-39/03 P: Commission of the European
      Communities v Artegodan GmbH and Others (1)
(Appeal — Directives 65/65/EEC and 75/319/EEC —                                                   ORDER OF THE COURT
Medicinal products for human use — Anorectics: amfepra-
mone, clobenzorex,            fenproporex,      norpseudoephedrine,                                     (First Chamber)
phentermine — Withdrawal of a marketing authorisation —
Competence of the Commission — Conditions for withdrawal)                                               of 24 July 2003
                                                                             in Case C-166/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                           (2003/C 226/02)                                   the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Alcácer do Sal): Daniel
                                                                             Fernando Messejana Viegas v Companhia de Seguros
                                                                                Zurich SA, Mitsubishi Motors de Portugal SA (1)
        (Languages of the case: German, English and French)
                                                                             (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Answer which
                                                                             may be clearly deduced from existing case-law — Second
                                                                             Directive 84/5/EEC — Compulsory insurance against civil
In Case C-39/03 P, Commission of the European Communities,                   liability in respect of motor vehicles — Types of civil
(Agents: R. B. Wainwright and H. Støvlbæk, assisted by                                   liability — Minimum amounts of cover)
B. Wägenbaur): Appeal against the judgment of the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities (Second Chamber,                                             (2003/C 226/03)
Extended Composition) of 26 November 2002 in Joined Cases
T-74/00, T-76/00, T-83/00 to T-85/00, T-132/00, T-137/00                                        (Language of the case: Portuguese)
and T-141/00 Artegodan and Others v Commission [2002]
ECR II-4945, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
other parties to the proceedings being: Artegodan GmbH,                                            the European Court Reports)
established in Lüchow (Germany), (represented by U. Doepner),
Bruno Farmaceutici SpA, established in Rome (Italy), Essential               In Case C-166/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
Nutrition Ltd, established in Brough (United Kingdom), Hoechst               by the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Alcácer do Sal (Portugal)
 ---pagebreak--- 20.9.2003              EN                             Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 226/3
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                   Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common
court between Daniel Fernando Messejana Viegas and                                system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment
Companhia de Seguros Zurich SA, Mitsubishi Motors de
Portugal SA, participant: CGU International Insurance plc —
Agência Geral em Portugal, Instituto de Solidariedade e                      2.   Order the defendant to pay the costs.
Segurança Social (ISSS), on the interpretation of the Second
Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to
                                                                             Pleas in law and main arguments
insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor
vehicles (OJ 1984 L 8, p. 17), the Court (First Chamber),
composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, P. Jann
(Rapporteur) and A. Rosas, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General;               The Commission charges the Kingdom of Spain with having
R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 24 July 2003, the                  failed to fulfil its obligations under a number of provisions of
operative part of which is as follows:                                       the Sixth Directive on two grounds:
                                                                             1.   Application of a deducible proportion to taxable persons
                                                                                who carry out only transactions in respect of which value
Article 1(2) of the Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of
                                                                                added tax is deductible (Article 102(1) of the Spanish Law
30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the
                                                                                on VAT).
Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect
of the use of motor vehicles precludes national laws which provide for a
number of types of civil liability applicable to road-traffic accidents
laying down, in respect of one of them, maximum amounts of com-                   According to the Commission, the Spanish provision
pensation that are lower than the minimum amounts of cover laid                   broadens unlawfully the scope of the deductible propor-
down by that article.                                                             tion in that it applies not only to taxable persons who
                                                                                carry out transactions in respect of which value added tax
                                                                                is deductible and transactions in respect of which value
                                                                                added tax is not deductible (mixed taxable persons), but
                                                                                also to those who carry out only taxable transactions (fully
(1) OJ C 156 of 29.6.2002.                                                        taxable persons), just because they have received subsidies
                                                                                which are not part of the basis of assessment of their
                                                                                taxable transactions. According to Article 17(5) of the
                                                                                Sixth Directive, the deductible proportion mechanism
                                                                                applies only where taxable persons carry out both
                                                                                transactions which are taxable but exempt and taxable
                                                                                transactions.
Action brought on 14 May 2003 by the Commission of the
   European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
                                                                                Furthermore, the inclusion of subsidies in the deductible
                                                                                proportion as regards mixed taxable persons is an option
                          (Case C-204/03)
                                                                                which the Member States have and constitutes an
                                                                                exception to the general principle of deduction of the
                          (2003/C 226/04)                                         amounts borne by way of VAT in respect of taxable
                                                                                unexempted transactions. Therefore, that option may not
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before the                     be exercised in order to treat unfavourably situations other
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 May                            than those provided for by the directive, contrary to what
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-                        has been provided by the Community legislature. The
sented by Enrico Traversa, Legal Adviser, and Lidia Lozano                        possible consequences for the neutrality of the tax arising
Palacios, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents.                                 from the use by the Member States of the option provided
                                                                                for under Article 19 of the directive cannot justify the
                                                                                extension by the Spanish authorities of the restriction on
                                                                                deduction to fully taxable persons, since the necessary
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                       legal basis for it is lacking and it is a measure contrary to
                                                                                the directive.
1.   Declare that, by maintaining in force provisions which pro-
     vide for a deductible proportion for taxable persons who                     The Spanish provision at issue results in double taxation,
     carry out only taxable transactions, and which lay down a                    since the taxable person who receives a subsidy uses it as
     special rule which limits the right to deduct VAT on the                     part of the consideration for the purchase of goods or
     purchase of goods or services just because they were sub-                    services. Such purchases are taxed in accordance with the
     sidised, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obliga-               Sixth Directive, so that the amount of the subsidy is
     tions under Community law and, in particular, Articles 17                    already subject to the relevant VAT. If that amount is then
     and 19 (2) and (5) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1)                 included in the denominator for the deductible propor-
     of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the                       tion, resulting in the restriction of the right to deduct of


title: Case T-151/07: Action brought on 8 May 2007 — KONE and Others v Commission

text:
               7.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/34

         Action brought on 8 May 2007 — KONE and Others v Commission
   (Case T-151/07)
   (2007/C 155/62)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: KONE Corp. (Helsinki, Finland), KONE GmbH (Hannover, Germany) and KONE BV (The Hague, The Netherlands) (represented by: T. Vinje, Solicitor, D. Paemen, J. Schindler, B. Nijs, lawyers, J. Flynn, QC and D. Scannell, Barrister)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicants request the Court to:

               —

               annul Article 2(2) of the decision in so far as it imposes a fine on KONE Corporation and KONE GmbH, and impose either no fine or a fine at a lower amount than determined in the Commission decision;

               —

               annul Article 2(4) of the Commission decision in so far as it imposes a fine on KONE Corporation and KONE BV, and set the fine at a lower amount than determined by the Commission decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By means of their application, the applicants seek partial annulment, pursuant to Article 230 EC, of Commission Decision C(2007)512 final of 21 February 2007 (Case COMP/E-1/38.823 — PO/Elevators and Escalators), on the basis of which the applicants, among other undertakings, were held liable for participating in four single, complex and continuous infringements of Article 81(1) EC through the sharing of markets by virtue of agreeing and/or concerting to allocate tenders and contracts for the sale, installation, service and modernisation of elevators and escalators.
   The applicants, KONE Corporation and its subsidiaries, KONE GmbH and KONE BV, challenge the contested decision only in respect of its imposition of fines on KONE as a whole for its participation in infringements in Germany and in the Netherlands.
   In respect of the infringement which took place in Germany, the applicants submit that the Commission erred in determining the amount of the fine. In particular, the applicants claim first, that the Commission has improperly applied the 2002 Leniency Notice (1) in that (i) it ought to have granted KONE immunity under point 8(b) and point 8(a) of the Notice; or alternatively, (ii) it ought to have reduced the applicants' fine in accordance with the last paragraph of point 23 of the said Notice.
   The applicants claim, secondly, that the Commission has improperly applied the Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 15(2) of Regulation (EC) No 17 and Article 65(5) of the ECSC Treaty of 1998 (2) (hereinafter, ‘the 1998 Fining Guidelines’) in that (i) it allegedly failed to take into account the size of the affected market in setting the fine; and in that (ii) it failed to acknowledge properly the applicants' non-contestation of the facts, as shown by its grant of a reduction of only 1 % in respect of this contribution.
   Thirdly, the applicants contend that the Commission has failed to observe basic principles of EC law in that (i) it disregarded the principle of legitimate expectations by failing to inform them in a timely manner of the unavailability of the immunity; in that (ii) it disregarded the principle of equal treatment by giving differential treatment to similarly situated immunity applicants; and in that (iii) it disregarded the applicants' rights of defence by refusing access to documents.
   In respect of the infringement which took place in the Netherlands, the applicants submit that the Commission erred in denying them any reduction of the fine and in setting the fine at EUR 79 750 000. In particular, the applicants suggest, first, that the Commission misapplied the 2002 Leniency Notice in that it failed to reduce the applicants' fine in recognition of the fact that the applicants provided information and cooperated during the administrative procedure. Secondly, the applicants allege that the Commission disregarded the principle of legitimate expectations and of equal treatment. Finally, the applicants put forward that the Commission has improperly applied the 1998 Fining Guidelines both in failing to take into account the attenuating circumstances in the applicants' favour, and in failing to properly acknowledge the fact that the applicants did not contest the facts.

      (1)  Commission Notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ 2002 C 45, p. 3).

      (2)  OJ 1998 C 9, p. 3.


title: Case T-87/08: Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 June 2008 — Cyprus v Commission

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/58

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 June 2008 — Cyprus v Commission
   (Case T-87/08) (1)

   (2008/C 223/105)

      Language of the case: Greek

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

      (1)  OJ C 142, 7.6.2008.


title: Case C-262/05: Action brought on 22 June 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

text:
               20.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/13

         Action brought on 22 June 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria
   (Case C-262/05)
   (2005/C 205/25)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 June 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Hans Støvlbæk and Andreas Manville, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that by not adopting the necessary laws, regulations and administrative provisions to transpose Directive 2001/19/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2001 amending Council Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC on the general system for the recognition of professional qualifications and Council Directives 77/452/EEC, 77/453/EEC, 78/686/EEC, 78/687/EEC, 78/1026/EEC, 78/1027/EEC, 80/154/EEC, 80/155/EEC, 85/384/EEC, 85/432/EEC, 85/433/EEC and 93/16/EEC concerning the professions of nurse responsible for general care, dental practitioner, veterinary surgeon, midwife, architect, pharmacist and doctor, or by not informing the Commission of such provisions, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations to implement that directive fully;

               —

               order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time-limit for transposition of the directive passed on 3 January 2003.

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 206, p. 1.


title: Case C-294/02: Action brought on 14 August 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against (1) Alcatel Microelectronics N.V., (2) A-Consult EDV-Beratungsgesellschaft mbH, (3) Intracom S.A. Hellenic Telecommunications & Electronic Industry, (4) Ision Sales & Services GmbH & Co. KG, (5) Euram-Kamino GmbH, (6) Landesbank Kiel, Girozentrale and (7) InterTeam GmbH in liquidation

text:
23.11.2002              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 289/7
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Berufungssenat I                 Action brought on 14 August 2002 by the Commission
der Region Linz bei der Finanzlandesdirektion für Ober-                    of the European Communities against (1) Alcatel Microe-
österreich mit Sitz in Linz by order of that Court of                      lectronics N.V., (2) A-Consult EDV-Beratungsgesellschaft
11 July 2002 in the appeal bought by Herbert Handlbauer                    mbH, (3) Intracom S.A. Hellenic Telecommunications &
                                GmbH                                       Electronic Industry, (4) Ision Sales & Services GmbH &
                                                                           Co. KG, (5) Euram-Kamino GmbH, (6) Landesbank Kiel,
                                                                              Girozentrale and (7) InterTeam GmbH in liquidation
                          (Case C-278/02)
                                                                                (Case C-294/02)
                          (2002/C 289/11)                                                          (2002/C 289/12)
                                                                           An action against (1) Alcatel Microelectronics N.V., (2)
                                                                           A-Consult EDV-Beratungsgesellschaft mbH, (3) Intracom S.A.
                                                                           Hellenic Telecommunications & Electronic Industry, (4) Ision
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     Sales & Services GmbH & Co. KG, (5) Euram-Kamino GmbH,
European Communities by order of the Berufungssenat I der                  (6) Landesbank Kiel, Girozentrale and (7) InterTeam GmbH in
Region Linz bei der Finanzlandesdirektion für Oberösterreich               liquidation was brought before the Court of Justice of the
mit Sitz in Linz (Linz Regional Appeal Board I at the Provincial           European Communities on 14 August 2002 (received at the
Finance Directorate for Upper Austria, in Linz) of 11 July                 Court of First Instance on 12 August 2002) by the Commission
2002, received at the Court Registry on 29 July 2002, for a                of the European Communities, represented by Günter Wilms,
preliminary ruling in the appeal brought by Herbert Handlbau-              of its Legal Service, assisted by Rolf Karpenstein, lawyer, with
er GmbH on the following questions:                                        an address for service in Luxembourg.
1.    Is Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of                    The Commission of the European Communities claims that
      18 December 1995 on the protection of the European                   the Court should:
      Communities’ financial interests (1) directly applicable in
      the Member States, in particular in the field of organis-
      ations of the market (export refunds) where there are                (1) order the defendants, as joint and several debtors, to pay
      irregularities?                                                            to the applicant EUR 317 214,00 plus interest at the rate
                                                                                of 2 % above the rate applied by the European Monetary
                                                                                Institute for euro transactions on the sum of
                                                                                EUR 125 820,00 since 8 June 1998 and on the sum of
      a.    Is Article 3(1) of the said regulation, which lays down
                                                                                EUR 191 394,00 since 6 May 1999;
            a limitation period of four years for proceedings
            concerning irregularities, directly applicable by the
            customs authorities of the Member States?                      (2) order the defendants to pay the costs.
2.    Is the announcement of a customs inspection made to
      the relevant responsible persons of an undertaking an act
      relating to investigation or legal proceedings which                 Pleas in law and main arguments
      interrupts the limitation period of four years under
      Article 3(1) of the said regulation, if the inspection takes
      place under Regulation (EEC) No 4045/89 (2) because of               By its action, the applicant seeks repayment of the difference
      the generally known risk or the frequency of acts                    between the advances paid by way of assistance towards a
      prejudicial to the financial interests of the Community in           project the ‘Electronic Commerce Fulfilment Service for the
      implementing the common agricultural policy?                         Electronics Industry’) and the financial contribution to be
                                                                           acknowledged as contractually due from the Commission. It is
                                                                           claimed that the Court of Justice has jurisdiction in the matter
                                                                           by virtue of an agreed jurisdiction clause (reading: ‘The Court
( 1) OJ L 312 [1995], p. 1.                                                of First Instance of the European Communities, ... shall have
( 2) OJ L 388 [1989], p. 18.                                               exclusive jurisdiction in any dispute between the Commission
                                                                           and the Contractors concerning the validity, application and
                                                                           interpretation of this contract’).


title: Case T-87/11 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 9 June 2011 — GRP Security v Court of Auditors (Interim measures — Public service contracts — Finding that there were irregularities in certain documents provided by the successful tenderer — Decisions imposing administrative sanctions on the successful tenderer and unilateral termination of the contract — Application for suspension of the operation of a measure — Lack of urgency)

text:
               23.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 219/17

         Order of the President of the General Court of 9 June 2011 — GRP Security v Court of Auditors
   (Case T-87/11 R)
   (Interim measures - Public service contracts - Finding that there were irregularities in certain documents provided by the successful tenderer - Decisions imposing administrative sanctions on the successful tenderer and unilateral termination of the contract - Application for suspension of the operation of a measure - Lack of urgency)
   2011/C 219/27
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: GRP Security (Bretrange, Luxembourg) (represented by: G. Osch, lawyer)

      Defendant: Court of Auditors of the European Union (represented by: T. Kennedy, J.-M. Steiner and J. Vermer, lawyers)

      Re:

   Suspension of the operation of the decisions of the Court of Auditors of 14 January 2011 by which, first, the Court of Auditors claimed payment from the applicant of damages in the amount of EUR 16 000 and reserved the right to claim further amounts by way of damages and, secondly, imposed on the applicant the administrative penalty of exclusion from contracts and subsidies financed by the budget of the European Union for a provisional period of three months.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case C-318/09 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 December 2011 — A2A SpA, formerly ASM Brescia SpA v European Commission (Appeals — State aid — Aid granted to public utilities — Tax exemptions — Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Standing — Legal interest — Article 87 EC — Concept of ‘aid’ — Article 88 EC — Concept of ‘new aid’ — Article 10 EC — Duty of loyal cooperation — Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Articles 1 and 14 — Lawfulness of a recovery order — Principle of legal certainty — Duty to state reasons)

text:
               18.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 49/3

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 December 2011 — A2A SpA, formerly ASM Brescia SpA v European Commission
   (Case C-318/09 P) (1)

   (Appeals - State aid - Aid granted to public utilities - Tax exemptions - Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Standing - Legal interest - Article 87 EC - Concept of ‘aid’ - Article 88 EC - Concept of ‘new aid’ - Article 10 EC - Duty of loyal cooperation - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Articles 1 and 14 - Lawfulness of a recovery order - Principle of legal certainty - Duty to state reasons)
   2012/C 49/05
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: A2A SpA, formerly ASM Brescia SpA (represented by: A. Santa Maria, A. Giardina, C. Croff and G. Pizzonia, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: E. Righini, V. Di Bucci and D. Grespan, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (now the General Court) (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 11 June 2009 in Case T-189/03 ASM Brescia SpA v Commission by which the General Court dismissed the action brought for annulment of Articles 2 and 3 of Commission Decision 2003/193/EC of 5 June 2002 on State aid granted by Italy in the form of tax exemptions and subsidised loans to public utilities with a majority public capital holding (OJ 2003 L 77, p. 21).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the main appeal and the cross-appeal.

               2.

               Orders A2A SpA to pay the costs of the main appeal.

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs of the cross-appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.


title: Case F-2/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 13 November 2014  — Hristov v Commission and EMA (Civil service — Procedure for selection and appointment of the Executive Director of a regulatory agency — European Medicines Agency (EMA) — Two-stage selection procedure — Pre-selection within the Commission — Appointment by the EMA’s Management Board — Obligation for the EMA’s Management Board to choose the Executive Director from among the candidates shortlisted by the Commission — Action for annulment — Composition of the pre-selection panel — Combination of functions of a member of the pre-selection panel and member of the EMA’s Management Board — Candidates who are members of the EMA’s Management Board included on the list of candidates shortlisted by the Commission — Appointment of the candidate who is a member of the EMA’s Management Board — Duty of impartiality — Infringement — Annulment — Action for damages — Material damage severable from the illegality serving as the basis for the annulment — Proof — None)

text:
               12.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/46

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 13 November 2014 — Hristov v Commission and EMA
   (Case F-2/12) (1)

   ((Civil service - Procedure for selection and appointment of the Executive Director of a regulatory agency - European Medicines Agency (EMA) - Two-stage selection procedure - Pre-selection within the Commission - Appointment by the EMA’s Management Board - Obligation for the EMA’s Management Board to choose the Executive Director from among the candidates shortlisted by the Commission - Action for annulment - Composition of the pre-selection panel - Combination of functions of a member of the pre-selection panel and member of the EMA’s Management Board - Candidates who are members of the EMA’s Management Board included on the list of candidates shortlisted by the Commission - Appointment of the candidate who is a member of the EMA’s Management Board - Duty of impartiality - Infringement - Annulment - Action for damages - Material damage severable from the illegality serving as the basis for the annulment - Proof - None))
   (2015/C 007/52)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Parties

      Applicant: Emil Hristov (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: M. Ekimdjiev, K. Boncheva and G. Chernicherska, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially J. Currall and D. Stefanov, Agents, subsequently by J. Currall and N. Nikolova, Agents)

      Defendant: European Medicines Agency (represented by: initially V. Salvatore and T. Jablonski, subsequently by J. Currall and N. Nikolova, Agents)

      Re:

   First, application for annulment of the Commission’s decisions concerning the drawing up and approval of the shortlist submitted to the EMA’s Management Board in the context of the procedure for the selection and appointment of the Executive Director of that agency; second, application for annulment of the appointment of another candidate to the post; and third, application for compensation for the non-material damage allegedly sustained.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the European Commission’s decision of 20 April 2011, by which it proposed to the Management Board of the European Medicines Agency a list of four candidates recommended by the pre-selection committee and approved by the Consultative Committee on Appointments.

               2.

               Annuls the decision of the Management Board of the European Medicines Agency of 6 October 2011 appointing the Executive Director,

               3.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder.

               4.

               Orders the European Commission and the European Medicines Agency the bear their own costs and to each pay half of the costs incurred by Mr Hristov.

      (1)  OJ C 184, 23.6.2012, p. 21.


title: Case C-271/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 14 July 2016 — Sea Handling SpA, in liquidation v European Commission (Appeal — Public right of access to documents of the EU institutions — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Third indent of Article 4(2) — Exceptions to the right of access to documents — Incorrect interpretation — Obligation to state reasons — Documents relating to a procedure for reviewing State aid — Protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits — General presumption of application of the exception to the right of access to all documents in the administrative file — Scope of the presumption of confidentiality — Application for access to the complaint which gave rise to an inquiry procedure — Refusal of access — Overriding public interest)

text:
               12.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 335/22

         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 14 July 2016 — Sea Handling SpA, in liquidation v European Commission
   (Case C-271/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Public right of access to documents of the EU institutions - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Third indent of Article 4(2) - Exceptions to the right of access to documents - Incorrect interpretation - Obligation to state reasons - Documents relating to a procedure for reviewing State aid - Protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits - General presumption of application of the exception to the right of access to all documents in the administrative file - Scope of the presumption of confidentiality - Application for access to the complaint which gave rise to an inquiry procedure - Refusal of access - Overriding public interest))
   (2016/C 335/30)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Sea Handling SpA, in liquidation (represented by: B. Nascimbene and M. Merola, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, D. Grespan and D. Nardi, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Sea Handling SpA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.