title: Case C-205/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) Sala de lo Contencioso-administrativo (Division for Contentious Administrative Proceedings) Sección Tercera (Third Chamber) by order of that court of 12 May 1999 in the case of Asociación Profesional de Empresas Navieras de Líneas Regulares (ANALIR), Isleña de Navegación S.A. (ISNASA), Fletamentos de Baleares S.A. and Unión Sindical Obrera (USO) against Administración del Estado

text:
17.7.1999               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 204/33
(b) the state of the case so permitting, annul Commission                Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
     Decision 94/215/ECSC (1) of 16 February 1994 relating to            Düsseldorf by order of that court of 12 May 1999 in
     a proceeding pursuant to Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty              the case of Deutsche Nichimen GmbH v Hauptzollamt
     concerning agreements and concerted practices (allegedly)                                      Düsseldorf
     engaged in by European producers of beams;
                                                                                (Case C-201/99)
(c) alternatively, reduce or cancel the fine set by the Court of
     First Instance imposed on British Steel by Article 4 of                                     (1999/C 204/66)
     Commission Decision 94/215/ECSC;
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
(d) order interest to be paid by the Commission on the fine or           European Communities by an order of the Fourth Senate of
     such part of it as is repaid under (b) or (c) above, in respect     the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Finance Court, Düsseldorf) of
     of the period since payment of the fine by British Steel on         12 May 1999, which was received at the Court Registry on
     2 June 1994 until repayment by the Commission and at                26 May 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Deutsche
     such rate as is considered by the Court to be fair and just;        Nichimen GmbH v Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf on the following
                                                                         questions:
(e) order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                         1. Is the definition of television receivers in heading No 8528
                                                                             of the Combined Nomenclature in the version in force
                                                                             from 1990 to 1992 to be interpreted as including devices
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              such as the satellite receivers more precisely described in
                                                                             the grounds of this order, even though with those devices
                                                                             television programmes can be made visible and audible
It is submitted, in summary, that the Court of First Instance                only with television receivers of domestic type?
erred in law in the following respects:
                                                                         2. If Question 1 is answered in the negative: Is the definition
                                                                             of parts in heading No 8529 of the Combined Nomen-
(a) in denying British Steel a fair trial within a reasonable                clature or in Note 2(b) to Section XVI of the Combined
     period, contrary to Article 6 of the European Convention                Nomenclature in the version in force from 1990 to 1992
     for the Protection of Human Rights;                                     to be interpreted as including devices such as the satellite
                                                                             receivers more precisely described in the grounds of this
(b) in finding that the Decision had been adopted and                        order, and are those devices then to be classified under
     authenticated in conformity with the requisite rules and                heading No 8529 of the Combined Nomenclature despite
     procedures,                                                             Note 2(b) to Section XVI of the Combined Nomenclature?
(c) in characterising the facts as agreements or concerted
     practices prohibited by Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty,
     in disregard of its own findings as to the nature and
     purpose of the contacts taking place between the undertak-
     ings within the framework of the Commission’s monitor-
     ing system and contrary to the meaning of Article 65(1);
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Supre-
                                                                         mo (Supreme Court) Sala de lo Contencioso-
(d) in finding, contrary to the rights of defence, that, during the      administrativo (Division for Contentious Administrative
     administrative procedure, the Commission had provided               Proceedings) Sección Tercera (Third Chamber) by order
     British Steel with sufficient information concerning its            of that court of 12 May 1999 in the case of Asociación
     own role and had carried out an adequate investigation              Profesional de Empresas Navieras de Lı́neas Regulares
     into its own role;                                                  (ANALIR), Isleña de Navegación S.A. (ISNASA), Fletamen-
                                                                         tos de Baleares S.A. and Unión Sindical Obrera (USO)
                                                                                against Administración del Estado
(e) in finding that the Decision contained an adequate state-
     ment of reasons for the fine imposed on British Steel;
                                                                                (Case C-205/99)
(f) in failing, contrary to Article 33 of the Treaty, to annul the
     Decision to the extent that it had found that British Steel                                 (1999/C 204/67)
     had committed infringements of Article 65(1) prior to
     1 July 1988.                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by order of the Tribunal Supremo,
                                                                         Sala de lo Contencioso-administrativo, Sección Tercera of
                                                                         12 May 1999, received at the Court Registry on 31 May 1999,
(1) OJ L 116, 06.05.1994, p. 1.                                          for a preliminary ruling in the case of Asociación Profesional
                                                                         de Empresas Navieras de Lı́neas Regulares (ANALIR), Isleña de
                                                                         Navegación S.A. (ISNASA), Fletamentos de Baleares S.A. and
                                                                         Unión Sindical Obrera (USO) against Administración del
                                                                         Estado on the following questions:
 ---pagebreak--- C 204/34               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       17.7.1999
1. May Article 4, in conjunction with Article 1, of Council            Action brought on 1 June 1999 by the Commission of the
     Regulation No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the             European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
     principle of freedom to provide services to maritime                                         Luxembourg
     transport within Member States (maritime cabotage) (1) be
     interpreted as permitting the provision of island cabotage                                 (Case C-210/99)
     services by undertakings covering regular shipping lines
     to be made subject to obtaining prior administrative
     authorisation?                                                                             (1999/C 204/69)
                                                                       An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
2. If so, may the grant and continuation of such administrat-          brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
     ive authorisation be made subject to the satisfaction of          ties on l June 1999 by the Commission of the European
     conditions such as fulfilment of fiscal and social security       Communities, represented by Marie Wolfcarius, Legal Adviser,
     obligations, distinct from those set out in Article 4(2) of       acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
     the Regulation?                                                   the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,
                                                                       Wagner Centre, Kirchherg.
3. May Article 4(1) of Regulation No 3577/92 be interpreted
     as permitting, in relation to one line or maritime route,         The applicant claims that the Court should:
     public service obligations to be imposed on some shipping
     companies while, at the same time, public service contracts,      1. Declare that, by failing to adopt and/or communicate the
     within the meaning of Article 2(3) of the Regulation, are              laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary
     concluded with others, in order to ensure regular services             to comply with Council Directive 95/18/EC of 19 June
     to, from or between islands?                                           1995 on the licensing of railway undertakings (1), the
                                                                            Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
                                                                            obligations under that directive; and
(1) OJ No L 364 of 12 December.1992, p. 7.
                                                                       2. Order the Grand Duchy of̀ Luxembourg to pay the costs.
                                                                       The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
                                                                       submitted in Case C-168/99 (2), the period prescribed in
                                                                       Article 16(2) of the directive expired on 27 June 1997.
                                                                       (1) OJ 1995 L 143, p. 70.
                                                                       (2) See this OJ p. 28.
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsge-
richt Bonn by order of that court of 22 April 1999 in the
          case of Birgit Frings v Blendermann GmbH
                         (Case C-209/99)
                                                                       Action brought on 1 June 1999 by the Commission of the
                                                                       European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
                         (1999/C 204/68)                                                          Luxembourg
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                          (Case C-211/99)
European Communities by an order of the Third Chamber of
the Arbeitsgericht Bonn (Labour Court, Bonn) of 22 April                                        (1999/C 204/70)
1999, which was received at the Court Registry on 1 June
1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Birgit Frings v
Blendermann GmbH on the following question:                            An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                       brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                       ties on 1 June 1999 by the Commission of the European
Is there a breach of the prohibition under European law of             Communities, represented by Marie Wolfcarius, Legal Adviser,
indirect discrimination on grounds of sex if national appli-           acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
cation of the Kündigungsschutzgesetz (Law on Protection                the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its legal Service,
against Dismissal) has the result that, where the amount of            Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
work required is reduced for operational reasons, if the
employer has made a business decision to maintain the                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
full-time posts occupied, then because of lack of comparability
no selection on social grounds takes place between part-time           1. Declare that, by failing to adopt and/or communicate the
and full-time employees, even though the part-time employee                 laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary
is prepared to accept a full-time post?                                     to comply with Council Directive 95/19/EC of 19 June
                                                                            1995 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity
                                                                            and the charging of infrastructure fees (1), the Grand Duchy
                                                                            of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                            that directive; and


title: Case C-35/12 P: Appeal brought on 25 January 2012 by Plásticos Españoles, S.A. (ASPLA) against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Fourth Chamber) on 16 November 2011 in Case T-76/06 ASPLA v Commission

text:
               24.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/15

         Appeal brought on 25 January 2012 by Plásticos Españoles, S.A. (ASPLA) against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Fourth Chamber) on 16 November 2011 in Case T-76/06 ASPLA v Commission
   (Case C-35/12 P)
   2012/C 89/24
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Plásticos Españoles, S.A. (ASPLA) (represented by: E. Garayar Gutiérrez and M. Troncoso Ferrer, abogados)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the present appeal admissible.

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 16 November 2011 in Case T-76/06 ASPLA v Commission

               —

               Alternatively, substantially reduce the amount of the fine imposed by the Commission and upheld by the General Court of the European Union, while having regard to the requirements of the principles of proportionality, equal treatment and non-discrimination.

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

               1.

                     First ground of appeal
                  : (i) infringement of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and of the case-law of the Court of Justice on that provision and on the concept of a ‘single and continuous’ infringement and (ii) infringement of the rules of procedure in relation to the burden of proof and the taking of evidence.
               The judgment under appeal contains errors of assessment concerning the evidence adduced by the Commission for the purposes of applying the concept of a single and continuous infringement to ASPLA, both in terms of (i) ASPLA’s alleged participation in the infringements in the open mouth bags and block bags sectors and (ii) ASPLA’s knowledge of the unlawful conduct in sub-groups in which it did not participate and of whether such conduct formed part of a ‘general collusive scheme’.

               2.

                     Second ground of appeal
                  : the General Court erred in law in finding that ASPLA was out of time in advancing the argument that incorrect sales figures were used when the financial penalty imposed on it was being determined. Alternatively, that argument directly concerns a matter of public policy which on account of the General Court’s lack of assessment also amounts to an error of law.
               As regards the main plea, the appellant submits that the General Court’s error lies in the fact that the argument in question is not a new plea in law but rather supplements an existing one, and also in the fact that the sales figures for the Grupo Armando Álvares were used in preference to those for ASPLA in order to calculate the penalty.
               As regards the alternative plea, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law by failing to assess properly the scope of the Commission’s duty to give reasons regarding the method of calculating the basic amount of the fine imposed on ASPLA.


title: Case C-493/09: Action brought on 1 December 2009 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

text:
               13.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/21

         Action brought on 1 December 2009 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-493/09)
   2010/C 37/25
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and M. Afonso, Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by taxing the dividends obtained by non-resident pension funds at a rate higher than the dividends obtained by pension funds resident in Portuguese territory, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 TFEU and Article 40 of the EEA Agreement.

               —

               Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Under the provisions of the Portuguese Estatuto dos Benefícios Fiscais (Tax Relief Regulations) and the Código do Imposto sobre o Rendimento das Pessoas Colectivas (the Corporation Tax Code), the dividends paid to pension funds set up and operating in accordance with the Portuguese legislation are wholly exempt from the imposto sobre o rendimento das pessoas colectivas (corporation tax). By contrast, the dividends paid to non-resident pension funds are subject to corporation tax at a rate of between 10 % and 20 %, depending on whether there is a bilateral agreement between Portugal and the State of residence and the terms thereof. That corporation tax is collected by being withheld at source.
   The detrimental difference in treatment by the Portuguese tax legislation of the non-resident pension funds makes the investment by those funds in Portuguese companies less profitable and attractive. The tax rules referred to therefore constitute a restriction prohibited by Article 63 TFEU and by Article 40 of the EEA Agreement.
   The discriminatory treatment of non-resident pension funds, which has harmful consequences on the competitiveness of the financial markets of the European Union and on the revenue from the investments made by the pension funds, cannot be justified by any of the grounds put forward by the Portuguese Republic.


title: Case C-493/13: Order of the President of the Court of 4 April 2014  — European Commission v Republic of Estonia

text:
               11.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/19

         Order of the President of the Court of 4 April 2014 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia
   (Case C-493/13) (1)

   2014/C 261/35
   Language of the case: Estonian
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.


               9.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/11

         Removal from the register of Case C-55/04 (1)

   (2004/C 251/20)
   By order of 15 July 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-55/04: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.

      (1)  OJ C 71, de 20.3.2004.


title: Case T-550/08 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 30 June 2009 — Tudapetrol Mineralölerzeugnisse Nils Hansen v Commission (Application for interim measures — Commission decision imposing a fine — Application for suspension of operation of the measure and interim relief (repayment of the fine already paid and waiver of a bank guarantee — No prima facie case and no urgency)

text:
               15.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/22

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 30 June 2009 — Tudapetrol Mineralölerzeugnisse Nils Hansen v Commission
   (Case T-550/08 R)
   (Application for interim measures - Commission decision imposing a fine - Application for suspension of operation of the measure and interim relief (repayment of the fine already paid and waiver of a bank guarantee - No prima facie case and no urgency)
   2009/C 193/35
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Tudapetrol Mineralölerzeugnisse Nils Hansen KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: M. Dallmann and U. Krauthause, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Antoniadis and R. Sauer, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for suspension of the operation of Commission Decision C(2008) 5476 final of 1 October 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement in Case COMP/39181 — Candle waxes, in so far as it imposes a fine on the applicant, application to release the applicant from the obligation to provide a bank guarantee as a condition for release from the obligation of payment, and other applications for interim measures

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case C-476/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 30 August 2013 — Heidemarie Retzlaff v easyJet Airline Co. Ltd

text:
               7.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 359/3

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 30 August 2013 — Heidemarie Retzlaff v easyJet Airline Co. Ltd
   (Case C-476/13)
   2013/C 359/04
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant and appellant on a point of law: Heidemarie Retzlaff

      Defendant and respondent in the appeal on a point of law: easyJet Airline Co. Ltd

      Questions referred

               1.

               May a right to compensation granted under national law which is intended to reimburse additional travel costs incurred as a result of the cancellation of a booked flight be deducted from the compensation granted under Article 7 of the regulation (1) if the air carrier has fulfilled its obligations under Articles 8(1) and 9(1) of the regulation?

               2.

               If deduction is possible: does this also apply to the costs of alternative transportation to the final destination of the flight?

               3.

               In so far as deduction is possible: may the air carrier make the deduction in all cases or is it dependent on the extent to which it is permitted by national law or on the extent to which the court considers it equitable?

               4.

               In so far as national law is determinant or the court is required to take a discretionary decision: is the payment of compensation under Article 7 of the regulation intended to redress only the inconvenience and loss of time suffered by passengers as a result of the cancellation, or is it intended also to redress material damage?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).


title: Case C-17/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Collège juridictionnel de la région de Bruxelles-Capitale (judicial board of the Brussels-Capital region) by order of that court of 9 December 1999 in the case of François De Coster v Collège des Bourgmestre et Echevins de Watermael-Boitsfort

text:
8.4.2000              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 102/11
(b) What relevance does it have that the leftover stone is the         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supreme Court,
    same as regards its composition as the basic rock from             Dublin, by order of that court of 30 July 1999, in the case
    which it has been quarried, and that it does not change its        of SIAC Construction Ltd against The County Council of
    composition regardless of how long it is kept or how it is                               the County of Mayo
    kept?
(c) What relevance does it have that the leftover stone is
    harmless to human health and the environment? To what
    extent generally is importance to be attached to its possible                               (Case C-19/00)
    effect on health and the environment in assessing whether
    it is waste?
(d) What relevance does it have that the intention is to transfer                              (2000/C 102/18)
    the leftover stone in whole or in part away from the
    storage site for recovery, for example for landfill or
    breakwaters, and that it could be used as such without
    processing or similar measures? To what extent in this
    connection should attention be paid to how definite plans          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    the holder of the leftover stone has for such recovery and         European Communities by an order of the Supreme Court,
    to how soon after the leftover stone has been deposited on         Dublin, of 30 July 1999, which was received at the Court
    the storage site the recovery takes place?                         Registry on 24 January 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                       case of SIAC Construction Ltd against The County Council of
                                                                       the County of Mayo, on the following question:
(1) OJ L 194 of 25.7.1975, p. 39.
(2) OJ L 78 of 26.3.1991, p. 32.
                                                                       In a situation where an authority is awarding a contract
                                                                       pursuant to the provisions of the second indent of Article 29.1
                                                                       of Council Directive (71/305/EEC) (1), Chapter 2 of 26 July
                                                                       1971 as applied in the national law of a Member State, and
                                                                       where the authority shall have specified the ‘Award criteria
                                                                       (other than price)’ as being that the contract would be awarded
                                                                       to ‘the competent contractor submitting a tender which is
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Collège                    adjudged to be the most advantageous to the’ (awarding
juridictionnel de la région de Bruxelles-Capitale (judicial            authority) ‘in respect of cost and technical merit’ and where
board of the Brussels-Capital region) by order of that                 the three lowest tenders shall have been contractors of accepted
court of 9 December 1999 in the case of François                       competence and shall have submitted valid tenders of accepted
De Coster v Collège des Bourgmestre et Echevins de                     technical merit, and where the tender prices of the three lowest
                      Watermael-Boitsfort                              tenderers shall not have diverged greatly, is the awarding
                                                                       authority obliged to award the contract to the contractor who
                         (Case C-17/00)                                shall have tendered the lowest price or is the awarding
                                                                       authority entitled to award the contract to the contractor with
                                                                       the second lowest price on the basis of the professional report
                        (2000/C 102/17)                                of its consulting engineer that the ultimate cost of the contract
                                                                       to the awarding authority is likely to be less if the contract is
                                                                       awarded to the contractor who tendered the second lowest
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 price than it would be if the contract were awarded to the
European Communities by an order of the Collège juridiction-           contractor who tendered the lowest price?
nel de la région de Bruxelles-Capitale of 9 December 1999,
which was received at the Court Registry on 19 January 2000,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of François De Coster v
Collège des Bourgmestre et Echevins de Watermael-Boitsfort
on the following question:
                                                                       (1) Concerning the co-ordination of procedures for the award of
                                                                           public works contracts (OJ L 185 of 16.8.1971, p. 5) (SE SER1
‘Are Articles 1 to 3 of the tax regulation on satellite dishes             71(II) p. 682).
adopted in a vote by the municipal council of Watermael-Boits-
fort sitting in public on 24 June 1997 introducing a tax on
satellite dishes compatible with Articles 59 to 66 of the Treaty
establishing the European Community of 25 March 1957?’


title: Case C-355/04 P: Appeal brought on 17 August 2004 by SEGI, A. Zubimendi Izaga, A. Galarraga against the order made on 7 June 2004 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-338/02 between SEGI, A. Zubimendi Izaga, A. Galarraga and the Council of the European Union, supported by the Kingdom of Spain and the United Kingdom

text:
               9.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/10

         Appeal brought on 17 August 2004 by SEGI, A. Zubimendi Izaga, A. Galarraga against the order made on 7 June 2004 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-338/02 between SEGI, A. Zubimendi Izaga, A. Galarraga and the Council of the European Union, supported by the Kingdom of Spain and the United Kingdom
   (Case C-355/04 P)
   (2004/C 251/18)
   An appeal against the order made on 7 June 2004 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-338/02 between SEGI, A. Zubimendi Izaga, A. Galarraga and the Council of the European Union, supported by the Kingdom of Spain and the United Kingdom, was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 August 2004 by SEGI, A. Zubimendi Izaga, A. Galarraga.
   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               hold that the present appeal is well-founded and annul the contested order;

               2.

               give, by virtue of Article 61 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice, a final ruling on the present case and uphold the arguments put forward by the applicants at first instance, namely, to reiterate, order the defendant to pay compensation amounting to EUR 1 000 000 to the association SEGI and EUR 100 000 to each of the other two applicants, Araitz Zubimendi Izaga and Aritza Galarraga. Payment of default interest on those sums is sought at the rate of 4.5 % per annum from the date of the Court's judgment until payment is made. An order is sought that the Council bear its own costs and those of the applicants.

         Pleas and main arguments
   The pleas and main arguments relied on are identical to those in Case C-354/04 P.


title: Case C-527/08: Action brought on 28 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

text:
               24.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/20

         Action brought on 28 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-527/08)
   (2009/C 19/37)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Simonsson, A.A. Gilly, Agents)

      Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/65/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on enhancing port security, or in any event by failing to communicate them to the Commission the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive;

               —

               order United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period within which the directive had to be transposed expired on 15 July 2007.

      (1)  OJ L 310, p. 28.


title: Case T-200/02: Action brought on 29 June 2002 by Vassilios Tsarnavas against Commission of the European Communities

text:
24.8.2002             EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 202/37
Action brought on 29 June 2002 by Vassilios Tsarnavas                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
    against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           —     annul the decision of the Selection Board to exclude
                        (Case T-200/02)                                          the applicant from the competition following the pre-
                                                                                selection tests, communicated by letter of 2 May 2002
                                                                                admin. A2/5000LM — IT 001451 signed by Herik
                        (2002/C 202/61)                                          Halskov;
                   (Language of the case: French)                          —     annul all other subsequent and consequent decisions
                                                                                which may be adopted by the Commission with regard
                                                                                to the applicant’s exclusion from the competition in
                                                                                question;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
European Communities on 29 June 2002 by Vassilios Tsarna-
vas, residing in Brussels, represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, lawyer,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           The applicant in the present action contests the decision of the
—     annul the decision of the Commission of 13 March 2002                Selection Board not to admit the applicant to the written tests
      rejecting in part the complaint lodged by the applicant              in general competition COM/A/10/01 Section 01/Law for
      under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations so far as               having failed to obtain sufficient marks to be included among
      concerns his claim for compensation;                                 the 400 best candidates.
—     accordingly, order the Commission to pay him                         The applicant points out in that regard that, according to
      EUR 12 500 by way of compensation for the non-                       the notice of the abovementioned competition, only those
      material damage suffered by him;                                     candidates obtaining the 400 best marks in the pre-selection
                                                                           tests were to be admitted to the competition.
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                           In support of his arguments, the applicants alleges:
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            —     unlawfulness of the notice of competition as contrary to
                                                                                Articles 4 and 5 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations of
                                                                                the European Community.
The applicant claims that he suffered damage as a result of the
infringement by the Commission of the General Provisions                   —     breach of the principles of sound administration, accord-
implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations inasmuch as                     ing to which the Commission must admit to the tests
the delay in drawing up his staff report is attributable to the                  only those candidates capable of meeting the conditions
Commission.                                                                      for admission set out in the notice.
Action brought on 9 July 2002 by Nicoletta Falcone                         Action brought on 3 July 2002 by Lene Beier against
    against Commission of the European Communities                                                      Europol
                        (Case T-207/02)                                                             (Case T-208/02)
                        (2002/C 202/62)                                                            (2002/C 202/63)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                                            (Language of the case: Dutch)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  An action against Europol was brought before the Court of
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 First Instance of the European Communities on 3 July 2002
European Communities on 9 July 2002 by Falcone Nicoletta,                  by Lene Beier, residing in The Hague (Netherlands), represented
represented by Massimo Condinanzi, lawyer.                                 by Maria Franciscus Baltussen and Pauline de Casparis, lawyers.


title: Case C-255/08: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 85/337/EEC — Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment — Determination of thresholds — Size of the project — Incomplete transposition)

text:
               5.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/11

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-255/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 85/337/EEC - Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment - Determination of thresholds - Size of the project - Incomplete transposition)
   2009/C 297/10
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. van Beek and J.-B. Laignelot, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C.M. Wissels and M. Noort, Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Incorrect transposition of Article 4(2) and (3) in conjunction with Annexes II and III of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Directives 97/11/EC and 2003/35 (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt all the provisions necessary to ensure that projects likely to have significant effects on the environment are made subject to a consent procedure and to an assessment of those effects, in accordance with Article 4(2) and (3) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 and by Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003, in conjunction with Annexes II and III to Directive 85/337, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 30.08.2008.


title: Case F-127/14: Action brought on 31 October 2014  — ZZ v Commission

text:
               12.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/60

         Action brought on 31 October 2014 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-127/14)
   (2015/C 007/78)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: A. Salerno, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application to annul the Commission’s decision refusing to re-calculate the bonus on the application’s pension rights acquired in the European Union pension scheme pursuant to the new general implementing provisions for Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               Annul the Commission’s decision of 27 January 2014 rejecting the applicant’s request, made on 6 January 2014, for re-calculation of the years of pensionable service credited following the transfer of his pension rights from the German pension system to the Community pension scheme;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay all the costs of the proceedings, irrespective of the outcome of the action, on the grounds that the response to the request was so ill-adapted to it that the applicant was obliged, in order to obtain a genuine examination of the complaints he submitted, to bring legal action.


title: Order of the Court of 26 November 1999 in Case C-192/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte dei Conti): ex post facto review proceedings against Azienda Nazionale Autonoma delle Strade (ANAS) (Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) — Definition of "court or tribunal of a Member State" — Directive 92/50/EC — Procedures for the award of public service contracts)

text:
C 63/10                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            4.3.2000
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                                         ORDER OF THE COURT
                          (First Chamber)                                                        of 26 November 1999
                      of 18 November 1999                                  in Case C-192/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                           the Corte dei Conti): ex post facto review proceedings
                                                                           against Azienda Nazionale Autonoma delle Strade
                                                                                (ANAS) (1)
in Case C-249/99 P: Pescados Congelados Jogamar SL v
       Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                           (Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) —
                                                                           Definition of ‘court or tribunal of a Member State’ —
(Appeal — Action for failure to act — Finding of inadmissi-                Directive 92/50/EC — Procedures for the award of public
                      bility at first instance)                                                     service contracts)
                           (2000/C 63/18)                                                             (2000/C 63/19)
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                                             (Language of the case: Italian)
(Provisional translation: the definitive translation will be published     (Provisional translation: the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                                             in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-249/99 P, Pescados Congelados Jogamar SL, estab-                 In Case C-192/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
lished in Las Palmas, Spain, represented by M. de Cristóbal               the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Corte dei Conti
López, of the Madrid Bar, with an address for service in                  (Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the ex post facto review
Luxembourg at the Head Office of Fiduciaire Beaumanoir, 48                 proceedings pending before that court against Azienda Nazion-
Rue de Bragance — appeal against the order of the Court of                 ale Autonoma delle Strade (ANAS) on the interpretation of
First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 30 April 1999 in Case                    Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the
T-311/97 Pescados Congelados Jogamar v Commission [1999]                   coordination of procedures for the award of public service
ECR II-0000, seeking to have that order set aside, the other               contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1) — the Court, composed of
party to the proceedings being the Commission of the                       G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida,
European Communities (Agent: J. Guerra Fernández) — the                   D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), L. Sevón and R. Schintgen,
Court (First Chamber) composed of: L. Sevón, President of the             Presidents of Chambers, P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puis-
Chamber, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and M. Wathelet, Judges;                     sochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet and
P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an               V. Skouris, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General; R. Grass,
order on 18 November 1999 in which it:                                     Registrar, has made an order on 26 November 1999, the
                                                                           operative part of which is as follows:
1. Dismisses the appeal;
                                                                           The Court does not have jurisdiction to answer the questions raised
2. Orders Pescados Congelados Jogamar SL to pay the costs.                 by the Corte dei Conti in its decision for reference of 7 April 1998.
(1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.                                                 (1) OJ C 234 of 25.7.1998.


title: Case C-312/04: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Communities' own resources — Undischarged TIR carnets — Procedures for collecting import duties — Non-compliance — Failure to transfer the related own resources and to pay default interest)

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/8

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-312/04) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Communities' own resources - Undischarged TIR carnets - Procedures for collecting import duties - Non-compliance - Failure to transfer the related own resources and to pay default interest)
   (2006/C 294/12)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Wilms and A. Weimar, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: H.G. Sevenster and J.G.M. van Bakel, Agents)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 2(1), 6(2), 10(1) and 11 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom, on the system of the Communities' own resources (OJ 1989 L 155, p. 1) — Failure to initiate, within the period prescribed, procedures for the collection of customs duties further to irregularities in the transport of goods covered by TIR carnets — Failure to transmit, within the period prescribed, the related own resources and to pay the default interest
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

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

      (1)  OJ C 228, 11.09.2004.


title: Case T-498/13: Action brought on 16 September 2013 — Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp v OHIM — Vincci Hoteles (NAMMU)

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/62

         Action brought on 16 September 2013 — Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp v OHIM — Vincci Hoteles (NAMMU)
   (Case T-498/13)
   2013/C 344/115
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. KG (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: A. Nordemann, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Vincci Hoteles, SA (Alcobendas, Spain)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 June 2013 given in Case R 611/2012-1; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The word mark ‘NAMMU’ for gods and services in Classes 3, 32 and 44 — Community trade mark registration No 5 238 704

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The application was based on Article 8(1)(b), in conjunction with Article 53(1)(a) CTMR

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the request for invalidity in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 57 (2) and (3) CTMR.


title: Case T-20/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 24 September 2008 — Kahla/Thüringen Porzellan v Commission (State aid — Existing aid or new aid — Firm in difficulty — Principle of legal certainty — Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations — Private investor test — Compatibility with the common market — Conditions)

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/33

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 24 September 2008 — Kahla/Thüringen Porzellan v Commission
   (Case T-20/03) (1)

   (State aid - Existing aid or new aid - Firm in difficulty - Principle of legal certainty - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations - Private investor test - Compatibility with the common market - Conditions)
   (2008/C 285/58)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Kahla/Thüringen Porzellan GmbH (Kahla, Germany) (represented by: M. Schütte and S. Zühlke, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Kreuschitz and V. Di Bucci, Agents, assisted by C. Koenig, professor)

      Interveners in support of the applicant: Freistaat Thüringen (Germany) (represented by: initially by A. Weitbrecht and A. van Ysendyck, and subsequently by A. Weitbrecht and M. Núñez-Müller, lawyers); and Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: W.D. Plessing and M. Lumma, Agents)
   Re:
   APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2003/643/EC of 13 May 2003 on the State aid implemented by Germany for Kahla Porzellan GmbH and Kahla/Thüringen Porzellan GmbH (OJ 2003 L 227, p. 12), in so far as that decision concerns the financial assistance granted to Kahla/Thüringen Porzellan GmbH.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Kahla/Thüringen Porzellan GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay a third of the costs incurred by the Commission, and the Commission to bear two thirds of its own costs;

               3.

               Orders the Land of Thuringia and the Federal Republic of Germany to bear theirown costs.

      (1)  OJ C 70, 22.3.2003.


title: Case T-124/13: Action brought on 4 March 2013 — Italy v Commission

text:
               8.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 164/18

         Action brought on 4 March 2013 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-124/13)
   2013/C 164/33
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri and P. Gentili, avvocati dello Stato)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Notice of open competition EPSO/AST/125/12 for establishing a reserve list with 110 places for the purposes of filling vacant Assistant (AST 3) posts in the fields of audit, finance/accounting, and economics/statistics;

               —

               annul Notice of open competition EPSO/AST/126/12 for establishing a reserve list with 78 places for the purposes of filling vacant Assistant (AST 3) posts in the fields of biology, life and health sciences, chemistry, physics and materials science, nuclear research, civil and mechanical engineering, and electrical engineering and electronics;

               —

               annul Notice of open competition EPSO/AD/248/13 for establishing a reserve list with 29 places for the purposes of filling vacant Administrator (AD 6) posts in the fields of security of buildings and building services engineering;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 263, 264 and 266 TFEU.

                           —

                           According to the applicant, the Commission has disregarded the authority of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-566/10 P [Italy v Commission [2012] ECR I-0000], which finds that it is unlawful for notices of European Union open competitions to limit — to English, French and German — the languages which candidates can indicate as their second language.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 342 TFEU and Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation No 1/58 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community.

                           —

                           In that regard, the applicant claims that, by limiting to three the number of languages which may be eligible as the second language of candidates in European Union open competitions, the Commission has in practice established a new rule in relation to the languages of the institutions, thereby encroaching upon the Council’s exclusive competence in that area.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of: Article 12 EC, now Article 18 TFEU; Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; Article 6(3) EU; Articles 1(2) and 3 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations; Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation No 1/58; Articles 1d(1) and (6), 27(2) and 28(f) of the Staff Regulations.

                           —

                           In the applicant’s view, the linguistic restriction imposed by the Commission is discriminatory because the legislative provisions cited above prohibit a body from imposing on EU citizens or officials of the institutions linguistic restrictions which are not generally and objectively provided for under the institutions’ rules of procedure as referred to in Article 6 of Regulation No 1/58 and which have not yet been adopted; they also prohibit a body from introducing such limitations unless they are justified by a specific substantiated interest of the service.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 6(3) EU, in so far as it establishes the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations as a fundamental right resulting from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States.

                           —

                           According to the applicant, the Commission has frustrated EU citizens’ expectations of being able to choose any language of the European Union as their second language, as was always the case up until 2007 and as was authoritatively confirmed in the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-566/10 P.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging misuse of powers and infringement of the substantive rules concerning the nature and purpose of competition notices (in particular, Articles 1d(1) and (6), 28(f) 27(2), 34(3) and 45(1) of the Staff Regulations), and a breach of the principle of proportionality.

                           —

                           According to the applicant, by restricting, in a pre-emptive and general manner, the number of languages eligible for use as a second language to three, the Commission has effectively placed the assessment of the candidates’ linguistic abilities — an assessment which ought to be carried out in the course of the competition itself — before the notice and eligibility stages. Thus, a candidate’s knowledge of languages, rather than his professional knowledge, becomes a decisive factor.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of: Article 18 and the fourth paragraph of Article 24 TFEU; Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; Article 2 of Regulation No 1/58; and Article 1d(1) and (6) of the Staff Regulations.

                           —

                           On that point, the applicant claims that, by making it compulsory for applications to be submitted in English, French or German and for any communications sent to candidates by EPSO regarding developments in the competition to be written in one of those languages, the right of EU citizens to interact with the institutions in their own language has been breached, and further discrimination against those citizens not having a thorough knowledge of those three languages has been created.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU (failure to state reasons), breach of the principle of proportionality, and misrepresentation of the facts.

                           —

                           The applicant claims that the Commission has used the requirement that new recruits be capable of communication within the institutions as a means of justifying the ‘three languages’ restriction. That reasoning misrepresents the facts because those three languages are not the languages used most often for the purposes of communicating between different linguistic groups within the institutions; it is also a disproportionate restriction of the fundamental right not to suffer linguistic discrimination. In reality, less restrictive systems exist for ensuring effective communication within the institutions.


title: Case F-20/12: Action brought on 15 February 2012 — ZZ v EIGE

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/35

         Action brought on 15 February 2012 — ZZ v EIGE
   (Case F-20/12)
   2012/C 138/80
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: T. Bontinck and S. Woog, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Institute for Gender Equality

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for the annulment of the defendant’s decision to reassign the applicant from the position of Head of Operations to a Team Leader position not requiring managerial skills.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 8 September 2011 of the Director of the EIGE to reassign the applicant to a non-management position;

               —

               consequently, order the applicant to be reinstated immediately to the position previously held and the management allowance to be paid with retroactive effect to 1 June 2010;

               —

               order the EIGE to pay the costs.


8.3.2003               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 55/17
      Freedoms, preclude the barring of the submission of an                     Removal from the register of Case C-304/99 ( 1)
      application to participate in or a tender for a public
      contract for works, supplies or services by any person
      who has been responsible for research, testing, study or                                    (2003/C 55/31)
      development in respect of those works, supplies or
      services where that person has not been given an
      opportunity to prove that, in the circumstances of the
      case, the experience he has acquired could not distort             By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of
      competition?                                                       Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                         from the register of Case C-304/99 (Reference for a preliminary
2.    Would the answer to the preceding question be different if         ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): F. Apollonio & C. SpA v
      the abovementioned directives, considered in conjunction           Ministero delle Finanze.
      with the same principle, freedom and law, were interpret-
      ed as covering only private undertakings or undertakings
      which had supplied gratuitous services?                            (1 ) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.
3.    Can Council Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992
      coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative
      provisions relating to the application of Community rules
      on the procurement procedures of entities operating in
      the water, energy, transport and telecommunications
      sectors (3), and in particular Articles 1 and 2 thereof, be
      interpreted as meaning that a contracting entity may
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-305/99 ( 1)
      exclude, up to the end of the process of evaluation of
      the tenders, from participation in the procedure or
      submission of a tender, an undertaking connected to any                                     (2003/C 55/32)
      person who has been responsible for the research, testing,
      study or development in respect of the works, supplies or
      services, although when questioned in that regard by the
      contracting authority that undertaking declares that it has
      gained therefrom no unfair advantage of a nature such as           By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of
      to distort the normal conditions of competition?                   Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                         from the register of Case C-305/99 (Reference for a preliminary
                                                                         ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Leglerdata SpA v Ministero
                                                                         delle Finanze.
( 1) OJ L 199 of 09.08.1993, p. 84.
( 2) OJ L 101 of 01.04.1998, p. 1.
( 3) OJ L 76 of 23.03.1992, p. 14.
                                                                         (1 ) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.
        Removal from the register of Case C-303/99 ( 1)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-358/99 ( 1)
                          (2003/C 55/30)                                                          (2003/C 55/33)
By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of               By order of 19 November 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-303/99 (Reference for a preliminary          from the register of Case C-358/99 (Reference for a preliminary
ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Markfactor SpA v Ministero          ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Tecnologie Meccaniche
delle Finanze.                                                           Avanzate Srl (TMA) v Ministero delle Finanze.
( 1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.                                             (1 ) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.


title: Case C-371/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 26 July 2010 — National Grid Indus BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Rijnmond (kantoor Rotterdam)

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 26 July 2010 — National Grid Indus BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Rijnmond (kantoor Rotterdam)
   (Case C-371/10)
   ()
   2010/C 328/19
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Gerechtshof Amsterdam

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: National Grid Indus BV

      Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Rijnmond (kantoor Rotterdam)

      Question referred

               1.

               If a Member State imposes on a company incorporated under the law of that Member State, which transfers its real company seat from that Member State to another Member State, a final settlement tax in respect of that transfer, can that company, in the present state of Community law, invoke Article 43 EC (now Article 49 TFEU) against that Member State?

               2.

               If the first question must be answered in the affirmative: is a final settlement tax such as the one at issue, which is applied, without deferment and without the possibility of taking subsequent decreases in value into consideration, to the capital gains relating to the assets of the company which were transferred from the exit Member State to the host Member State, as assessed at the time of the transfer of the company seat, contrary to Article 43 EC (now Article 49 TFEU), in the sense that such a final settlement tax cannot be justified by the necessity of allocating the power to impose taxes between the Member States?

               3.

               Does the answer to the previous question also depend on the circumstance that the final settlement tax in question relates to a (currency) profit which accrued under the tax jurisdiction of the Netherlands, whereas that profit cannot be reflected in the host Member State under the tax regime applicable there?


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 10 September 1999 in Case T-173/99 R: Gilbert Elkaïm and Philippe Mazuel v Commission of the European Communities (Proceedings for interim relief - Officials - Urgency - None)

text:
C 314/10               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    30.10.1999
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                             (2) order the Commission to pay the costs.
                           INSTANCE
                     of 10 September 1999
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
in Case T-173/99 R: Gilbert Elkaïm and Philippe Mazuel v
        Commission of the European Communities
                                                                         The applicant manufactures starch from potatoes and maize
                                                                         and markets its products both within Austria and abroad, in
(Proceedings for interim relief — Officials — Urgency —                  the non-food sector (paper industry, chemical industry, textile
                              None)                                      industry, etc.) and in the biological sector.
                        (1999/C 314/23)
                                                                         The contested decision declared the aid plan, by which aid
                                                                         corresponding to 20 % of the investment costs was to be
                   (Language of the case: French)                        granted to the applicant in respect of the investments made by
                                                                         it in its plant in Aschach (converting a high-pressure soaking
                                                                         facility for maize starch to standard technology and increasing
In Case T-173/99 R: Gilbert Elkaïm, residing in Paris, and               its capacity; investing in a saccharification line using maize
Philippe Mazuel, residing in Brussels, represented by Nicolas            starch as the raw material), to be incompatible with the
Ravailhe, of the Brussels Bar, v Commission of the European              common market and refused approval of that aid plan.
Communities (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and Florence Clo-
tuche-Duvieusart) — application for suspension of the pro-
cedure for the recruitment of successful candidates in open
                                                                         The applicant advances the following pleas:
competition COM/A/15/98 — the President of the Court of
First Instance made an order on 10 September 1999, the
operative part of which is as follows:                                   — At the time of the opening of the investigation procedure
                                                                              concerning the grant of aid to the Aschach plant, the
1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.                         two-month ‘Lorenz’ time-limit had already expired. Conse-
                                                                              quently, the Republic of Austria is (and was) entitled to
2. The costs are reserved.                                                    implement the aid measures. The Commission’s decision,
                                                                              according to which the aid plan may not be implemented,
                                                                              is therefore unlawful.
                                                                         — In Article 151(1) of the Act of Accession of Austria, in
                                                                              conjunction with Declaration No 31 appended to the Final
                                                                              Act, the Contracting Parties agreed to show flexibility with
Action brought on 20 August 1999 by Agrana Zucker-                            regard to transitional national aid schemes designed to
GesmbH against the Commission of the European Com-                            facilitate the restructuring of the processing industry in
                             munities                                         Austria with a view to adjustment to the internal market.
                                                                              As a result, the Commission is under an obligation, in
                                                                              cases involving aid plans such as this, to refrain from
                         (Case T-187/99)                                      applying a narrow construction to the exception provided
                                                                              for by Article 87(3)(c) EC, as it would normally do, and
                        (1999/C 314/24)                                       instead to interpret that provision widely, having regard to
                                                                              the special ‘accession scenario’ (that is to say, the special
                                                                              situation prevailing in the processing industry in Austria
                 (Language of the Case: German)                               where accession is not accompanied by transitional
                                                                              arrangements). The Commission failed to do this in the
                                                                              contested decision; in exercising its discretion, it thus
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                     infringed the rules of primary law laid down by the Act of
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                    Accession.
European Communities on 20 August 1999 by Agrana
Zucker-GesmbH, of Vienna, represented by Walter Barfuß and
Hanno Wollmann, of Messrs Schönherr Barfuß Torggler &                    — In its decision, the Commission failed to consider, or gave
Partners, Vienna, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                only rudimentary consideration to, the main argument
the Chambers of Messrs Arendt & Medernach. 8-10 Rue                           advanced by the Republic of Austria throughout the aid
Mathias Hardt.                                                                procedure, based on Declaration No 31 appended to the
                                                                              Final Act and the need to give the Austrian processing
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   industry (particularly the starch industry) the opportunity
                                                                              to carry out structural adjustments. Consequently, the
(1) annul Commission Decision 1999/342/EC of 30 Septem-                       contested decision is vitiated by an absence of reasoning
    ber 1998 concerning aid which Austria plans to grant to                   within the meaning of Article 253 EC.
    Agrana Stärke GmbH to build and convert starch pro-
    duction facilities (notified under document num-
    ber C(1998) 3023) (OJ 1999 L 131, p. 61; correction
    published in OJ 1999 L 145, p. 40);


title: Case C-44/08: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 September 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland)) — Akavan Erityisalojen Keskusliitto AEK ry and Others v Fujitsu Siemens Computers Oy (Preliminary ruling procedure — Directive 98/59/EC — Approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies — Article 2 — Protection of workers — Informing and consulting with workers — Group of undertakings — Parent company — Subsidiary)

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/15

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 September 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland)) — Akavan Erityisalojen Keskusliitto AEK ry and Others v Fujitsu Siemens Computers Oy
   (Case C-44/08) (1)

   (Preliminary ruling procedure - Directive 98/59/EC - Approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies - Article 2 - Protection of workers - Informing and consulting with workers - Group of undertakings - Parent company - Subsidiary)
   2009/C 267/26
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Korkein oikeus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Akavan Erityisalojen Keskusliitto AEK ry and Others

      Defendant: Fujitsu Siemens Computers Oy

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Korkein oikeus — Interpretation of Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16) — Determination of the time when an obligation arises on the part of a subsidiary to begin consultations with the representatives of its staff — Plans or decisions adopted within a group of undertakings concerning a change in the activities of one of the subsidiaries of that group

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 2(1) of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies must be interpreted to mean that the adoption, within a group of undertakings, of strategic decisions or of changes in activities which compel the employer to contemplate or to plan for collective redundancies gives rise to an obligation on that employer to hold consultations with workers’ representatives.

               2.

               Whether the obligation has arisen for the employer to start consultations on the collective redundancies contemplated does not depend on whether the employer is already able to supply to the workers’ representatives all the information required in Article 2(3)(b) of Directive 98/59.

               3.

               Article 2(1) of Directive 98/59, read in conjunction with the first subparagraph of Article 2(4) of that directive, must be interpreted to mean that, in the case of a group of undertakings consisting of a parent company and one or more subsidiaries, the obligation to hold consultations with the workers’ representatives falls on the subsidiary which has the status of employer only once that subsidiary, within which collective redundancies may be made, has been identified.

               4.

               Article 2(1) of Directive 98/59, read in conjunction with Article 2(4) of that directive, must be interpreted to mean that, in the case of a group of undertakings, the consultation procedure must be concluded by the subsidiary affected by the collective redundancies before that subsidiary, on the direct instructions of its parent company or otherwise, terminates the contracts of employees who are to be affected by those redundancies.

      (1)  OJ C 107, 26.4.2008.


title: Case F-17/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 13 December 2006 — de Brito Sequeira Carvalho v Commission (Officials — Sick leave — Placing on compulsory sick leave)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/45

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 13 December 2006 — de Brito Sequeira Carvalho v Commission
   (Case F-17/05) (1)

   (Officials - Sick leave - Placing on compulsory sick leave)
   (2006/C 331/100)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: José António de Brito Sequeira Carvalho (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: K.H. Hagenaar, subsequently O. Martins and M. Boury, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall, subsequently D. Martin, Agents, and by C. Falmagne, lawyer)
   Re:
   First, a declaration that the Commission's decision placing the applicant on compulsory sick leave is non-existent, together with an order that the Commission put an end to the alleged blatantly unlawful conduct of which the applicant considers himself to be the victim, and, second, an application for damages
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               annuls the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 13 July 2004 forbidding Mr de Brito Sequeira Carvalho access to Commission buildings;

               2.

               annuls the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 22 September 2004 extending the applicant's sick leave by six months and the subsequent extension of that sick leave;

               3.

               dismisses the remainder of the forms of order sought in the application;

               4.

               orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs and two-thirds of the costs incurred by the applicant.

      (1)  OJ C 155, 25.6.2005 (case initially registered before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under number T-145/05 and transferred to the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union by order of 15.12.2005.


title: Case T-727/15: Judgment of the General Court of 23 January 2017 — Justice & Environment v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to an infringement procedure opened by the Commission against the Czech Republic — Refusal of access — Exception concerning the protection of inspections, investigations and audits — General presumption — Overriding public interest — Aarhus Convention — European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms)

text:
               6.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 70/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 23 January 2017 — Justice & Environment v Commission
   (Case T-727/15) (1)

   ((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to an infringement procedure opened by the Commission against the Czech Republic - Refusal of access - Exception concerning the protection of inspections, investigations and audits - General presumption - Overriding public interest - Aarhus Convention - European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms))
   (2017/C 070/25)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Association Justice & Environment, z.s. (Brno, Czech Republic) (represented by: S. Podskalská, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Pignataro-Nolin, F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the initial Commission decision of 19 August 2015 and the confirmatory Commission decision of 15 October 2015 refusing to grant the applicant access to certain documents contained in the file of the infringement procedure 2008/2186 against the Czech Republic and regarding the application of Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (OJ 2008 L 152, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Association Justice & Environment, z.s., to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.


title: Case T-425/13: Action brought on 19 August 2013 — Giant (China) v Council

text:
               9.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 325/36

         Action brought on 19 August 2013 — Giant (China) v Council
   (Case T-425/13)
   2013/C 325/61
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Giant (China) Co. Ltd (Kunshan, China) (represented by: P. De Baere, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Council Regulation (EU) No 502/2013 of 29 May 2013 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bicycles originating in the People's Republic of China following an interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (OJ 2013 L 153, p. 17), in so far as it relates to the applicant; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the that the Council applied the wrong legal test to determine that Jinshan and Giant China formed a single economic entity thereby violating Article 9(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (the basic regulation).

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Council made a manifest error of assessment when concluding that Giant China and the Jinshan group of companies have a close commercial and structural relationship.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Council violated Article 18 of the basic regulation by requesting the production of information that was not necessary and could not reasonably be expected to be provided by Giant China.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council made a manifest error of assessment in considering that Giant China did not claim that obtaining the information relating to Jinshan was unreasonably burdensome.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council made a manifest error of assessment in considering that the evidence submitted by applicant could not be verified.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission and the Council violated the rights of defense of Giant China by requesting information it was unable to provide and by dismissing the alternative evidence adduced.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Council made a manifest error of assessment in considering that the imposition of an individual duty on Giant China would have created a risk of circumvention.

               8.

               Eighth plea in law, alleging that the Council applied different criteria in assessing whether there was a risk of circumvention in the case of the applicant than the criteria applied for other producers and thereby violated the principles of non-discrimination and proportionality.


title: Case T-181/07: Action brought on 25 May 2007 — Eurocopter v OHIM (STEADYCONTROL)

text:
               21.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 170/32

         Action brought on 25 May 2007 — Eurocopter v OHIM (STEADYCONTROL)
   (Case T-181/07)
   (2007/C 170/63)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Eurocopter (Marignane, France) (represented by E. Soler Borda, lawyer)

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

               —

               annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 March 2007 concerning the application for a Community trade mark STEADYCONTROL No 3 560 935 (R 8/2006-4) in its entirety.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘STEADYCONTROL’ in respect of goods in Classes 9, 12 and 38 (application No 3 560 935)

      Decision of the Examiner: Partial refusal of registration in respect of products in Classes 9 and 12

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and of Article 7(2) of Council Regulation No 40/94 (1) in so far as, according to the applicant and in contrast to the grounds of the contested decision, the word ‘STEADYCONTROL’ is not descriptive and allows the goods applied for to be distinguished.

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


C 176/32                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    24.6.2000
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            were concluded in breach of the Code of Conduct governing
                                                                       the Commission’s relations with interim staff. It follows
— annul the Commission’s decision of 9 April 1999 refusing             that those contracts must be reclassified as contracts of
     to grant the applicant the expatriation allowance;                employment with the Commission of indeterminate duration.
— order the Commission to pay the expatriation allowance               In the alternative, the applicant maintains that the concept of
     to the applicant from 1 April 1999, together with default         work done for an international organisation within the
     interest at the rate of 8 % per annum;                            meaning of Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations
                                                                       does not require the existence of a direct contractual link with
— order the Commission to pay all the costs.
                                                                       the Commission.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant pleads, principally, infringement of Article 4 of
Annex VII to the Staff Regulations. He maintains that the work
done by him as a member of the Commission’s interim                           Removal from the register of Case T-289/97 (1)
staff must be regarded as work done for an international
organisation within the meaning of the final sentence of Article                               (2000/C 176/56)
4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations. It is therefore
necessary, for the purposes of calculating the period for which
the applicant worked in the country of employment prior to                                (Language of the case: French)
taking up his duties, to disregard the periods during which he
worked on an interim basis. It follows that the applicant was          By order of 9 March 2000 B. Vesterdorf, sitting as a single
entitled to receive an expatriation allowance.                         Judge, has ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                       T-289/97: Peter Cain v Commission of the European Com-
In support of his claims, the applicant pleads, in particular, the     munities.
existence of numerous legal links between him and the
Commission. In addition, his contracts as an interim worker            (1) OJ C 26 of 24.1.1998.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 July 2005 in Case T-241/01, Scandinavian Airlines System AB v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Cartel — Air transport — Regulation (EEC) No 3975/87 — Notified agreements — Cooperation beyond the scope of the notification — Market-sharing — Fine — Guidelines for the calculation of fines — Seriousness of the infringement — Notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines — Attenuating circumstances — Unlimited jurisdiction)

text:
               17.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 229/12

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 18 July 2005
   in Case T-241/01, Scandinavian Airlines System AB v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Competition - Cartel - Air transport - Regulation (EEC) No 3975/87 - Notified agreements - Cooperation beyond the scope of the notification - Market-sharing - Fine - Guidelines for the calculation of fines - Seriousness of the infringement - Notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines - Attenuating circumstances - Unlimited jurisdiction)
   (2005/C 229/24)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case T-241/01: Scandinavian Airlines System AB, established in Stockholm (Sweden), represented by M. Kofmann, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: P. Oliver and W. Wils, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for annulment of Article 2 of Commission Decision 2001/716/EC of 18 July 2001 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA (COMP.D.2 37.444 — SAS/Maersk Air and COMP.D.2 37.386 — Sun-Air versus SAS and Maersk Air) (OJ 2001 L 265, p. 15), in so far as it fixes the fine imposed on the applicant at EUR 39 375 000, and, in the alternative, an application for the reduction of that fine — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of J. Azizi, President, M. Jaeger and F. Dehousse, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 18 July 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

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

      (1)  OJ C 369, de 22.12.2001