title: Action brought on 16 September 1996 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-301/96)

text:
No C 336/ 18              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      9 . 11 . 96
       produced in various Member States and is the subject of            Action brought on 16 September 1996 by the Federal
       significant intra-Community trade; the production                  Republic of Germany against the Commission of the
       volume has for some years been comparable to, if not                                  European Communities
       higher than , that in Greece; feta consumption primarily                                  ( Case C-301 /96 )
       involves feta produced outside Greece . Lastly, feta is
                                                                                ( 96/C 336/35 )
       subject to long-standing rules in several Member States,
       dating from before the introduction of the Greek rules,            An action against the Commission of the European
       and the name 'feta ' features in various Community acts            Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
       adopted since 1975 , without being reserved to a product           European Communities on 16 September 1996 by the
       of Greek origin .                                                  Federal Republic of Germany, represented by Ernst Roder,
                                                                          Ministerialrat in the Federal Ministry of the Economy
 ( ! ) Regulation ( EC ) No 1107/96 of 12 July 1996 on the registration   D-53107, and Thomas Oppermann , of the University of
       of geographical indications and designations of origin under the   Tubingen, acting as Agents .
       procedure laid down in Article 17 of Council Regulation ( EEC )
       No 2081 /92 ( OJ No L 148 , 21 . 6 . 1996 , p. 1 ).                The applicant claims that the Court should :
 ( 2 ) OJ No L 208 , 24 . 7. 1992 , p . 1 .
                                                                          — annul Article 2 of Decision COM(96 ) 1844 final of
                                                                              26 June 1996 concerning aid granted by Germany to the
                                                                              Volkswagen group for its Mosel and Chemnitz factories;
                                                                              furthermore, annul Article 1 of that decision to the
                                                                              extent that it limits the amounts declared to be
                                                                              compatible with the common market to DM 418,7
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Schleswig                        million for direct investment grants and DM 120,4
Holsteinisches Verwaltungsgericht by order of that court of                   million for investment premiums,
22 April 1996 in the case of Erika Reimer v. Amt fur Land               — annul Article 3 ( 2 ) of Decision COM(96 ) 1844 final of
                  und Wasserwirtschaft Flensburg                              26 June 1996 in so far as it provides that the combined
                           ( Case C-300/96 )                                  effective aid intensity, expressed as gross grant
                             ( 96/C 336/34 )                                  equivalent, must not exceed 22,3 % for Mosel II or
                                                                              20,8 % for Chemnitz II, and
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   — order the defendant to pay the costs of the
European Communities by order of the Schleswig                               proceedings .
Holsteinisches Verwaltungsgericht ( Schleswig-Holstein
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Administrative Court ) of 22 April 1996 , which was received
at the Court Registry on 16 September 1996 , for a                        Infringement of the Treaty and breach of essential
preliminary ruling in the case of Erika Reimer v. Amt fur                procedural requirements:
Land- und Wasserwirtschaft Flensburg on the following
questions :
                                                                         — the provision in Article 92 ( 2 ) ( c ) of the EC Treaty
                                                                              concerning the division of Germany is an exception by
                                                                              operation of law from the basic prohibition of aid
( a ) Is the second subparagraph of Article 9 ( 2 ) of                        contained in Article 92 ( 1 ), whereas the exceptions
        Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 3887/92 of                           under Article 92 ( 3 ) are optional . In cases of aid falling
        23 December 1992 laying down detailed rules for                       under Article 92 ( 2 ), the procedure under Article 93 ( 3 )
        applying the integrated administration and control                    is confined to examining whether the factual criteria are
        system for certain Community aid schemes ( ] ) [as it                 met — namely, in the particular case of Article 92 ( 2 ) ( c ),
        stood before the entry into force of Commission
                                                                              whether there are disadvantages caused by division and
        Regulation ( EC ) No 1648/95 of 6 July 1995 amending                  whether aid is required to compensate for them . The
        Regulation ( EEC ) No 3887/92], which excludes a                      applicant alleges breach of the obligation to state
        farmer from any area-linked payment whatever where                    reasons laid down in Article 1 90 of the EC Treaty, in that
        the area actually determined for a particular crop is                 the Commission deliberately failed to deal with the
        found to be less than that declared in his aid application
                                                                              provision concerning division, and breach of the
        if the difference is more than 20% , even where the
                                                                              principle that action must not be unreasonable or
        discrepancy is not intentional or the result of serious               disproportionate, in that the Commission adopted the
        negligence but merely of minor negligence, compatible                 contested decision on the basis of Article 92 ( 3 ) ( c ) in
        with the principle of proportionality in Community                    accordance with the discretionary criteria of the
        law ?
                                                                              Community framework on State aid to the motor vehicle
                                                                              industry,
( b ) If not, how is the second subparagraph of Article 9 ( 2 )
        of Regulation ( EEC ) No 3887/92 [as it stood before the         — the contested decision is contrary to Article 92 ( 2 ) ( c ) of
        entry into force of Regulation ( EC ) No 1648/95 ] to be              the Treaty, relating to the division of Germany. General
        interpreted in such cases ?                                           principles of interpretation apply to that provision.
                                                                              Consequently, alongside the principle that factors giving
(!) OJ No L 391 , 31 . 12 . 1992 , p . 36 .
                                                                              rise to an exemption are to be construed narrowly,
                                                                              which the Commission has stated in formal terms, the
                                                                              principle that rules of Community law are to be
                                                                              interpreted meaningfully must in particular be observed;
 ---pagebreak--- 9 . 11 . 96                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 336/ 19
     in accordance with generally accepted principles, the                       voted for, and limited to, reconstruction in the new
     interpretation called for in the strict framework of                        Lander,
     Article 92 ( 2 ) ( c ) is neither a narrow nor a liberal
                                                                             — the reasons given for the contested decision are
     interpretation but one which ensures the effectiveness of
                                                                                contradictory in that the Commission on the one hand
     the provision .
                                                                                assumes that the Volkswagen investments in question
     Since the reunification of Germany on 3 October 1990,                       were merely postponed, with its approval, in 1993 and
     the area to which Article 92 ( 2 ) ( c ) of the EC Treaty                   on the other hand claims that they constitute an
     applies has extended beyond the areas of the Federal                        extension of existing capacity,
     Republic affected by the division of Germany to cover                   — the Commission has inadequately assessed the relevant
     the whole of eastern Germany. Already when the                              facts and has in particular mistakenly considered that
     Saarland joined the Federal Republic in 1957 it was clear                   the restructuring measures for Mosel I/Chemnitz I were
     that the area in which the rule in that subparagraph                        temporary measures of employment policy pending the
     applied was extended to the region then joining the                         construction of the new Mosel II/Chemnitz II,
     Republic, in accordance with the principle of
     international law that treaties apply to States as their                — ( in the alternative :) in the context of its assessment of the
     frontiers exist for the time being. This was again                          aids under Article 92 ( 3 ) of the Treaty, the
     confirmed during the negotiations for the Maastricht                        Commission :
     Treaty on European Union; a proposal from the                               — dealt with aid granted on 22 March 1992 essentially
     Luxembourgish Presidency of the Council for an                                  on the basis of the Community framework on State
     amendment to the EEC Treaty in the autumn of 1991                               aid to the motor vehicle industry ( l ), even though
     initially no longer contained the provision in                                  that framework was to expire at the end of 1990 ,
     Article 92 ( 2 ) ( c ) of the EC Treaty . In 1992, furthermore,
     a provision worded identically to Article 92 ( 2 ) ( c ) of the             — ruled out, in formal terms, subparagraph ( b ) which
     EC Treaty was included in Article 61 ( 2 ) ( c ) of the EEA                     the German Government had, as a precaution , given
     Agreement; that would no longer have had any sense                              as a legal basis,
     unless the area of the nine new Federal Lander had also                     — did not apply subparagraph ( a ), even though the
     been meant .                                                                    conditions for its application were met,
     The contested aids for ' Mosel II/Chemnitz II ' are                         — unjustifiably and contrary to long-established
     required in order to compensate for the economic                                practice, regarded the Mosel II/Chemnitz II project
     disadvantages caused by the division of Germany in the                          as expansion investment and not as new
     motor vehicle region of Saxony . Unlike Article 92 ( 2 ) ( b ),                 investment,
      subparagraph ( c ) does not speak of aid to 'make good                     — made non-reconstructible calculations and failed to
      . . . damage' but — more flexibly — to 'compensate for'                        take the supporting documents submitted by
      disadvantages caused by division . Measures serving to                         Volkswagen into acount,
      reestablish comparable economic and social structures
      as between eastern and western Germany are measures                    — breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate
      which compensate within the meaning of                                     expectations by the Commission's surprising
      Article 92 ( 2 ) ( c ). The aim of that provision, which is to             ' about-turn' in no longer regarding Mosel II/Chemnitz II
                                                                                as new investment but as expansion investment.
      compensate for disadvantages caused by division within
      Germany, is fundamentally different from that of                       (') OJ No C 123 , 18 . 5 . 1989 , p . 3 .
      facilitating the development of certain economic areas or
      activities, provided for in Article 92 ( 3 ). Compensation
      under Article 92 ( 2 ) (c ) involves overcoming, as rapidly
      and effectively as possible, the effects of division . The             Action brought on 16 September 1996 by the Commission
      aids referred to in Article 92 ( 3 ) ( a ) and ( c ), however, lie     of the European Communities against the Federal Republic
      within the different context of the policy of economic                                             of Germany
      and social cohesion within the Community under                                                 ( Case C-302/96 )
      Article 130a of the EC Treaty . That aim is pursued by the
      Community through its regional policy in the                                                     ( 96/C 336/36 )
      framework of Title XIV of the Treaty. The Community                    An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
      has included eastern Germany in that policy as a                       brought before the Court of Justice of the European
       'Target 1 ' area . That does not, however, entail the                 Communities on 16 September 1996 by the Commission of
      withdrawal of the special development possibilities                    the European Communities, represented by Paul Nemitz, of
      which Germany uses to compensate as rapidly as                         the Commission's Legal Service, with an address for service
      possible, with its own resources and on the basis of the               in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of
       special provisions of Article 92 ( 2 ) ( c ) of the EC Treaty,        the Legal Service of the Commission, Wagner Centre 254,
       for the consequences of division.                                     Kirchberg.
      When examining under Article 93 of the Treaty whether                  The applicant claims that the Court should :
       aid falling under Article 92 ( 2 ) ( c ) is 'required', it must be
       borne in mind that the German legislation practically                 — declare that, by reason of the payment by the Free State
       precludes any misuse . The authorities may not award aid                   of Saxony to Volkswagen Sachsen GmbH and
       ' on the open market'; under the applicable German                         Volkswagen       Immobilienverwaltung           GmbH       of
       legislation , the purpose and amount of possible aids are                  investment aid for their investment projects in Mosel


title: Case C-270/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 17 May 2013 — Iraklis Haralambidis v Calogero Casilli

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/30

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 17 May 2013 — Iraklis Haralambidis v Calogero Casilli
   (Case C-270/13)
   2013/C 207/51
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Iraklis Haralambidis

      Defendant: Calogero Casilli

      Questions referred

               1.

               Given that the exclusion laid down in Article 45(4) TFEU does not appear to apply to the present case [which concerns the appointment of a national of another Member State of the European Union as President of a Port Authority, a legal entity which can be classed as a body governed by public law] in that it relates to. employment in the public service (which is not an issue. in the present case) and given also that the fiduciary role of President of a Port Authority may nevertheless be regarded as an ‘employment activity’ in the broad sense,. does the provision reserving that post exclusively to Italian nationals constitute discrimination on grounds of nationality prohibited by Article 45 TFEU?

               2.

               Alternatively, may the holding of the office of President of an Italian Port Authority by a national of another Member State of the European Union be regarded as falling within the scope of the right of establishment laid down in Article 49 et seq. TFEU and, if so, does the prohibition laid down in national law on non-Italian nationals holding that office constitute discrimination on grounds of nationality, or would such a finding be precluded by Article 51 TFEU?

               3.

               As a lesser alternative, in the event that the holding of the office of President of an Italian Port Authority by a national of another Member State of the European Union may be regarded as the provision of ‘services’ for the purposes of Directive 2006/123/EC, (1) is the exclusion of port services from the scope of that directive relevant in the present case and, if not, does the prohibition under national law in relation to the holding of that office constitute discrimination on grounds of nationality?

               4.

               In the further alternative, … in the event that the holding of the office of President of an Italian Port Authority by a national of another Member State of the European Union does not fall within the scope of any of the above provisions, may it nevertheless be regarded, more generally, in accordance with Article 15 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as a prerogative coming under the right of Community citizens to ‘work, to exercise the right of establishment and to provide services in any Member State’, irrespective of the specific ‘sectoral’ provisions laid down in Article 45 and Article 49 et seq. TFEU, and in Directive 2006/123/EC on services in the internal market, and is the prohibition under national law in relation the holding of that office accordingly inconsistent with the equally general prohibition on discrimination on grounds of nationality laid down in Article 21(2) of that Charter?’

      (1)  Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36).


title: Case C-100/99: Action brought on 17 March 1999 by the Italian Republic against Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 160/8                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        5.6.1999
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozial-                  2. If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative:
gericht by order of 15 October 1998 in the case of Hassan
              Osseili v. Bundesanstalt für Arbeit                             Does Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 also apply to stateless
                                                                              workers and to members of their families who have
                          (Case C-97/99)                                      travelled directly to a Member State from a non-member
                                                                              country and have not moved within the Community?
                         (1999/C 160/17)
                                                                         (1) JO L 149, 5.7.1971, p. 2; OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II),
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       p. 416.
European Communities by order of 15 October 1998 from
the Bundessozialgericht (Federal Social Court), which was
received at the Court Registry on 17 March 1999, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Hassan Osseili v. Bundesan-
stalt für Arbeit on the following questions:
1. Does Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) of 14 June
     1971 on the application of social security schemes to               Action brought on 17 March 1999 by the Italian Republic
     employed persons, to self-employed persons and to mem-              against Council of the European Union and Commission
     bers of their families moving within the Community apply                            of the European Communities
     to stateless persons and to members of their families if
     such persons have no right of free movement under the                                        (Case C-100/99)
     Treaty of 25 March 1957 establishing the European
     Community, as amended by the Treaty of 7 February 1992
     on the European Union?                                                                       (1999/C 160/19)
2. If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative:                    An action against the Council of the European Union and the
                                                                         Commission of the European Communities was brought
     Does Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 also apply to stateless            before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
     workers and to members of their families who have                   17 March 1999 by the Italian Republic, represented by
     travelled directly to a Member State from a non-member              Umberto Leanza, acting as Agent, assisted by Danilo Del
     country and have not moved within the Community?                    Gaizo, Avvocato dello Stato, with an address for service in
                                                                         Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy, 5 rue Marie-Adelaïde.
(1) JO L 149 , 5.7.1971, p. 2; OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II),
    p. 416.                                                              The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
                                                                         — annul the contested regulations (1)
                                                                         — order the Council and the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozial-
gericht by order of 15 October 1998 in the case of
       Mohamad Nasser v. Landeshauptstadt Stuttgart                      1.     The amendment to Article 4 of Regulation (EC)
                                                                         No 2799/98, contained in Article 2 of Regulation (EC)
                          (Case C-98/99)                                 No 2800/98, applies to the participating Member States the
                                                                         same prohibition provided for in respect of the non-
                                                                         participating Member States to grant compensatory aid for
                         (1999/C 160/18)                                 prices and amounts other than those referred to in Article 5 of
                                                                         Regulation (EC) No 2799/98 that does not exceed appreciable
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   revaluation of 2,6 %.
European Communities by order of 15 October 1998 from
the Bundessozialgericht (Federal Social Court), which was                That requirement constitutes, by its undifferentiated nature, a
received at the Court Registry on 17 March 1999, for                     distortion to the disadvantage of the participating currencies,
a preliminary ruling in the case of Mohamad Nasser v.                    in particular those which can show an ‘appreciable’ income
Landeshauptstadt Stuttgart on the following questions:                   loss in converting to the euro, and is contrary to the principles
                                                                         and objectives of the common agricultural policy, and in
1. Does Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) of 14 June               particular to Articles 39 and 40 of the Treaty and to the
     1971 on the application of social security schemes to               principle of proportionality.
     employed persons, to self-employed persons and to mem-
     bers of their families moving within the Community apply
     to stateless persons and to members of their families if            2.     The second complaint concerns the way in which
     such persons have no right of free movement under the               the compensatory mechanism provided for in Article 4 of
     Treaty of 25 March 1957 establishing the European                   Regulation (EC) No 2799/98 has been applied, in particular as
     Community, as amended by the Treaty of 7 February 1992              regards the determination of the flat-rate income loss which,
     on the European Union?                                              for certain products, is unjustified and unfair.
 ---pagebreak--- 5.6.1999               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 160/9
3.     Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 2799/98 reserves a                 2. If the answer to question 1 is ‘yes’, was Article 4 of
particularly favourable treatment, in terms of compensatory                   Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2630/81 on special
aid, for certain products. Firstly, unlike the remaining prices               detailed rules for the application of the system of import
and amounts, the reduction is set at 0,5 % rather than at 2,6 %;              and export licences in the sugar sector (2), of 10 September
secondly, it constitutes a ‘de minimis’ limit rather than an                  1981 (now replaced by Article 5 of Commission Regu-
abatement percentage; thirdly, application of such a reduction                lation (EC) No 1464/95 on special detailed rules for the
is dependent on a discretionary choice by the Member States.                  application of the system of import and export licences in
Finally, under Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2800/99, the                the sugar sector (3), of 27 June 1995) ultra vires and void
Community contribution for the first year amounts to 100 %.                   for the reason that it imposed a requirement which is not
                                                                              found in or justified by Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81,
                                                                              namely, that an export licence for C sugar may only be
There is no legal basis or valid reason for the abovementioned
                                                                              issued after the manufacturer in question has provided the
disparity of treatment, specifically so far as concerns the setting
                                                                              competent agency with proof that the quantity for which
of a reduction for a lower amount applicable under conditions                 the licence is requested, or an equivalent quantity has
which are by far more favourable to producers.                                actually been produced in excess of the A and B quotas of
                                                                              the undertaking concerned?
Moreover, the favourable treatment reserved for the products
and the aid in question amounts to penalisation of Mediterrane-           3. If the answer to question 1 or question 2 is ‘no’, in the
an agriculture, which is altogether contrary to the rules and                 circumstances of this case, is the National Authority in
principles of the Treaty, and is furthermore vitiated by lack of              maintaining that the sugar exported as C sugar was A or B
essential procedural requirements and misuse of powers.                       quota sugar and/or in then seeking to impose a charge
                                                                              pursuant to Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EEC)
                                                                              No 2670/81, laying down detailed implementing rules in
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2799/98 (OJ L 349, 24.12.1998,                 respect of sugar production in excess of the quota (4), of
    p. 1).                                                                    14 September 1981 for the failure to dispose of C sugar
    Council Regulation (EC) No 2800/98 (OJ L 349, 24.12.1998,                 outside the EC, in breach of one or more of the following
    p. 8).                                                                    general principles of Community law:
    Commission Regulation (EC) No 2808/98 (OJ L 349, 24.12.1998,
    p. 36).
    Commission Regulation (EC) No 2813/98 (OJ L 349, 24.12.1998,              (a) the principle of Legitimate Expectations,
    p. 48).
    with particular regard to the provisions complained of,                   (b) the principle of Legal Certainty,
                                                                              (c) the principle of Non Discrimination,
                                                                              (d) the principle of Proportionality,
                                                                              (e) the principle of the Proper Use of Powers;
                                                                          with the effect that the demand for the charge in the present
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of                   case is void and unenforceable?
Justice, Queen’s Bench Division (Crown Office) (England
& Wales), by order of that court of 26 February 1999, in                  4. Further or alternatively, if the answer to question 1 is ‘no’:
the case of The Queen against Intervention Board for
      Agricultural Produce, ex parte: British Sugar plc.                      (a) Does the National Authority have a discretion to vary
                                                                                the amount of the charge to be imposed pursuant to
                                                                                Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EEC)
                         (Case C-101/99)                                           No 2670/81?
                         (1999/C 160/20)                                      (b) If the answer to 4 (a) is ‘yes’, what factors may the
                                                                                National Authority take into account in exercising
                                                                                such a discretion in the light, in particular, of the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                             circumstances of this case?
European Communities by an order of the High Court of
Justice, Queen’s Bench Division (Crown Office) (England &                     (c) If the answer to 4 (a) is ‘no’, is Article 3(1) of Regulation
Wales), of 26 February 1999, which was received at the Court                       (EEC) No 2670/81 void to the extent that it requires a
Registry on 18 March 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the                         National Authority to levy a charge even when the
case of The Queen against Intervention Board for Agricultural                      amount of sugar disposed of on the internal market
Produce, ex parte: British Sugar plc, on the following questions:                  does not, in practice, exceed the sum of the relevant
                                                                                manufacturer’s A and B quotas?
1. Under the EC Sugar Regime and in particular under Article
     24.1.c of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 on the                 5. Is the National Authority, in the circumstances of this case,
     common organization of the markets in the sugar sector (1),              prevented from levying a charge pursuant to Article 3(1)
     of 30 June 1981, may an undertaking awarded a quota by                   of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2670/81 where it has
     a national authority attribute sugar as C sugar when that                not notified the undertaking of such a charge in accordance
     sugar is produced during a marketing year before the                     with the time limit contained in Article 3(2) of Regulation
     undertaking has actually completed production of a vol-                  (EEC) No 2670/81 before 1 May of the relevant year
     ume of sugar that is equivalent to the sum of its A and B                and/or is the undertaking relieved of any obligations to
     quotas?                                                                  pay such a charge in the above circumstances?


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 18 June 1998 in Case C-183/97: Commission of the European Communities v. Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Failure to transpose Directive 80/68/EEC)

text:
5.9.98               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 278/3
Golfo di La Spezia Coop. arl, Ministero dei Trasporti e                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
della Navigazione Ð on the interpretation of Articles 3, 5,
30, 59, 85, 86 and Article 90(1) of the EC Treaty and of                                     (Sixth Chamber)
Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 of 22 December                                           of 18 June 1998
1986 applying the principle of freedom to provide services
to maritime transport between Member States and                      in    Case   C-183/97: Commission of the European
between Member States and third countries (OJ L 378,                            Communities v. Portuguese Republic (1)
31.12.1986, p. 1) Ð the Court (Fifth Chamber),
composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, M.                (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð
Wathelet (Rapporteur), J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, J.-P.                        Failure to transpose Directive 80/68/EEC)
Puissochet and L. Sevón, Jugdes; N. Fennelly, Advocate-
General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator,                                        (98/C 278/05)
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 June 1998,
in which it has ruled:
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
1. Article 30 of the EC Treaty does not preclude
    legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in
    this case, which requires shipping companies which
    are established in other Member States and whose                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
    vessels make port stops in the first-mentioned Member                      published in the European Court Reports)
    State to have recourse to the services of local mooring
    groups holding exclusive concession, for a charge
    higher than the actual cost of the service provided.
                                                                     In Case C-183/97: Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities (Agents: Francisco de Sousa Fialho and
2. The combined provisions of Articles 5, 85, 86 and
                                                                     Nicholas Khan) v. Portuguese Republic (Agents: Luís
    Article 90(1) of the EC Treaty do not preclude
                                                                     Fernandes and JoaÄo Lopes Fernandes) Ð application for a
    legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in
                                                                     declaration that, by failing to adopt all the laws,
    this case,
                                                                     regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
                                                                     comply fully and properly with Council Directive 80/68/
    Ð which confers on undertakings established in that              EEC of 17 December 1979 on the protection of
        State an exclusive right to provide a mooring                groundwater against pollution caused by certain
        service,                                                     dangerous substances (OJ L 20, 26.1.1980, p. 43), in
                                                                     particular with Articles 8, 9, 10, 11 and 15 thereof, and,
    Ð which requires the service to be used at a price               in the alternative, by failing to inform the Commission of
        which, in addition to the actual cost of the service         such measures forthwith, the Portuguese Republic has
        provided, includes a supplement to cover                     failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 21(1) of that
        maintenance of universal mooring service, and                Directive Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: H.
                                                                     Ragnemalm, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen, G. F.
                                                                     Mancini, G. Hirsch and K. M. Ioannou (Rapporteur),
    Ð which provides for tariffs that vary from one port
                                                                     Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate-General; R. Grass,
        to another in order to take into account each
                                                                     Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 June 1998, in which
        port's particular characteristics.
                                                                     it:
3. The provisions of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/
    86 of 22 December 1986 applying the principle of
    freedom to provide services to maritime transport                1. declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed
    between Member States and between Member States                       period, all the laws, regulations and administrative
    and third countries and Article 59 of the EC Treaty do                provisions necessary to comply fully and properly with
    not preclude legislation of a Member State, such as                   Council Directive 80/68/EEC of 17 December 1979
    that at issue in this case, which requires shipping                   on the protection of groundwater against pollution
    companies established in another Member State, when                   caused by certain dangerous substances, in particular
    their vessels make port stops in the first Member State,              with Articles 8, 9, 10, 11 and 15 thereof, the
    to have recourse to the services which local mooring                  Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
    groups holding exclusive concessions supply for a                     under Article 21(1) of the Directive;
    charge. Such legislation, even if it constituted an
    impediment to freedom to provide maritime transport
    services, would, in fact, be justified by considerations
                                                                     2. orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
    of public security within the meaning of Article 56 of
    the EC Treaty.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 199, 28.6.1997.
( ) OJ C 336, 9.11.1996.
 1


title: Case T-406/08: Judgment of the General Court of 18 June 2013 — ICF v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — World market in aluminium fluoride — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Price-fixing and market-sharing — Evidence of the infringement — Rights of defence — Consistency between the statement of objections and the contested decision — Fines — 2006 Guidelines on fines — Euro-Mediterranean Agreement)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/61

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 June 2013 — ICF v Commission
   (Case T-406/08) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - World market in aluminium fluoride - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Price-fixing and market-sharing - Evidence of the infringement - Rights of defence - Consistency between the statement of objections and the contested decision - Fines - 2006 Guidelines on fines - Euro-Mediterranean Agreement)
   2013/C 225/136
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Industries chimiques du fluor (ICF) (Tunis, Tunisia) (represented: initially by M. van der Woude and T. Hennen and subsequently by P. Wytinck and D. Gillet, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier, K. Mojzesowicz and N. von Lingen, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 3043 of 25 June 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81[EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (COMP/39.180 — Aluminium fluoride), concerning a worldwide price-fixing and market-sharing cartel on the world aluminium fluoride market and, in the alternative, reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Industries chimiques du fluor to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.


title: Case T-167/00: Action brought on 19 June 2000 by "D" against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
26.8.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 247/35
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Commission. In those circumstances, the choice of recruitment
                                                                          procedure was not determined in accordance with the interests
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case               of the service.
T-107/00 Consorzio Industrie Fiammiferi v Commission (1).
                                                                          The applicant further claims that, since he had been eligible
(1) Not yet published in the Official Journal.
                                                                          for promotion to grade A4 since 1 April 1998, the contested
                                                                          decision of 13 December 1999, appointing him to the post
                                                                          which he had been occupying for over two years, necessarily
                                                                          removed the obligation to consider the possibility of promot-
                                                                          ing him.
Action brought on 19 June 2000 by Peter Hirschfeldt
         against the European Environment Agency
                          (Case T-166/00)
                                                                          Action brought on 19 June 2000 by ‘D’ against the
                         (2000/C 247/62)                                           Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-167/00)
                   (Language of the case: French)
An action against the European Environment Agency was                                              (2000/C 247/63)
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 19 June 2000 by Peter Hirschfeldt, residing
in Copenhagen, represented by Jean-Noël Louis and Véronique                                  (Language of the case: French)
Peere, of the Brussels Bar.
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 19 June 2000 by ‘D’, residing in
—     annul the decision to annul internal competition                    Luxembourg, represented by Jean-Noël Louis and Véronique
      EEA/T/99/1, notified to the applicant by letter of 27 Sep-          Peere, of the Brussels Bar.
      tember 1999;
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of 13 December 1999 concerning the
      transfer of the applicant from the Commission to the
                                                                          —     annul the Commission’s decision of 20 August 1999
      European Environment Agency, inasmuch as it classifies
                                                                                refusing to recognise his civil status as a party to a ‘stable
      him in step 3 of grade A5 with effect from 1 November
                                                                                homosexual union’ and to grant him and his partner all
      1999;
                                                                                the resulting entitlements including, in particular, cover
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                                     under the Joint Sickness and Accident Insurance Scheme,
                                                                                the benefit of the household allowance and the rights
                                                                                conferred by the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 including the right not to be subject to immigration
                                                                                restrictions or to formalities for the registration of aliens;
The applicant pleads as follows in opposition to the contested
                                                                          —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
decisions:
—     infringement of Articles 8, 45 and 27 of the Staff
      Regulations;                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
—     infringement of Article 5 of the Staff Regulations and of           The applicant, a Commission official, concluded with a partner
      the principle of equal treatment;                                   of the same sex, in accordance with the Catalan Law of
                                                                          15 July 1998, a solemn partnership agreement (‘unión estable
—     a misuse of powers in the present case.                             homosexual’). According to the applicant, that agreement
                                                                          creates reciprocal rights and obligations on the part of the
According to the applicant, the annulment of competition                  partners, including in particular the obligation to contribute to
EEA/T/99/1 was decided upon in consequence of an inter-                   household expenses and joint expenditure. The applicant
institutional agreement between the Commission and the                    subsequently submitted a request for recognition of his civil
defendant Agency, according to which a transfer procedure                 status as a party to a ‘unión estable homosexual’ and for the
was chosen in preference to a competition, with a view to                 grant of the household allowance. By the contested decision,
avoiding the risk of the applicant being established in the               the Commission classified the applicant as an unmarried
Agency whilst at the same time retaining his post in the                  person and refused to grant him a household allowance.
 ---pagebreak--- C 247/36               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        26.8.2000
In support of his claims, the applicant pleads:                           residing at Arolo di Leggiuno (Italy), represented by Eric
                                                                          Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar.
—    Infringement of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations:
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
     The contested decision, which takes the form of a ‘file
     note’, is vitiated by the total absence of any statement of          —     annul the decision headed ‘Article 73 of the Staff Regu-
     reasons;                                                                   lations’, taken on 13 September 1999 by the Head of the
                                                                                Unit responsible for insurance against accidents and
—    Infringement of Article 7 EC and failure to have regard to                 occupational diseases within DG IX — Personnel and
     the principle of conferred powers:                                         Administration, acting as the appointing authority, by
                                                                                which the applicant was informed of the appointing
     The Commission had itself found fault with the appli-                      authority’s refusal to apply Article 73 of the Staff Regu-
     cant’s civil status, instead of acting in conformity with the              lations and to reimburse his medical expenses, on the
     rights of the Member States, which have sole legislative                   ground that the matter involved an accident arising from
     competence in matters of personal status;                                  the practice of a sport regarded as dangerous within the
                                                                                meaning of the third indent in Article 4(1)(e) of the Rules
—    Infringement of the principle of the integrity of personal                 on the insurance of officials of the European Communities
     status:                                                                    against the risk of accident and of occupational disease;
     By the contested decision, the Commission deprives the               —     annul the implicit decision rejecting the applicant’s
     applicant of any possibility of asserting his rights arising               complaint seeking annulment of the above-mentioned
     from his personal status;                                                  contested decision;
—    Violation of the principles of non-discrimination and of             —     order the defendant to reimburse to the applicant all
     freedom of movement for workers:                                           the medical expenses connected with the hang-gliding
                                                                                accident sustained by him on 9 May 1999, together with
     The applicant pleads discrimination based on sex and                       default interest at the annual rate of 8 % from the date of
     sexual orientation, contrary to Article 141 EC, infringe-                  the accident to the date of actual reimbursement;
     ment of Article 1(2) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations
     and discrimination on grounds of nationality;                        —     rule that it is for the defendant to bear the cost of paying
                                                                                the benefits referable to total and partial temporary
—    Infringement of the right to privacy:                                      incapacity and partial permanent incapacity, in accord-
                                                                                ance with the rates and criteria to be determined by an
     The contested decision constitutes unauthorised inter-                     expert or agreed between the parties;
     ference with the exercise of the right to the protection of
     privacy and family life.                                             —     order the defendant to pay the costs in any event.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          The applicant pleads infringement of Articles 72 and 73 of the
                                                                          Staff Regulations and of the second indent in Article 4(1)(b) of
                                                                          the rules referred to above, as well as violation of the principles
Action brought on 23 June 2000 by Peter Spruyt against                    of the protection of legitimate expectations and of equal
      the Commission of the European Communities                          treatment.
                          (Case T-171/00)                                 He maintains in that regard that the contested decision is
                                                                          manifestly based on an incorrect interpretation of the second
                         (2000/C 247/64)                                  indent in Article 4(1)(b) of the rules, in that, because hang-
                                                                          gliding is not expressly referred to in the list of sports expressly
                                                                          mentioned in that provision, the defendant was not entitled to
                    (Language of the case: French)                        regard it as a ground for excluding the social cover defined in
                                                                          Article 73 of the Staff Regulations without producing evidence
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 to show either that it is assimilable to the practice of one of
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                the sports mentioned or that it is regarded as dangerous, which
European Communities on 23 June 2000 by Peter Spruyt,                     it has not done.


title: Case C-388/10 P: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 March 2011 — Félix Muñoz Arraiza v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Calificada Rioja (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Articles 8(1)(b), 43(2) and 44(1) — Application for Community word mark RIOJAVINA — Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier Community collective figurative mark RIOJA — Refusal to register — Likelihood of confusion)

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/10

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 March 2011 — Félix Muñoz Arraiza v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Calificada Rioja
   (Case C-388/10 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Articles 8(1)(b), 43(2) and 44(1) - Application for Community word mark RIOJAVINA - Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier Community collective figurative mark RIOJA - Refusal to register - Likelihood of confusion)
   2011/C 252/19
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Félix Muñoz Arraiza (represented by: J. Grimau Muñoz and J. Villamor Muguerza, abogados)

      Other party parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, Agent), Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Calificada Rioja (represented by: J. Martinez De Torre, abogado)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgement of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 June 2010 in Case T-138/09 Muñoz Arraiza v OHIM — Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Calificada Rioja (RIOJAVINA), by which that court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 January 2009 (Case R 721/2008-2) relating to opposition proceedings between the Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Calificada Rioja and Mr. Félix Muñoz Arraiza

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Muñoz Arraiza is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.


title: Case T-106/08: Action brought on 27 February 2008 — CPEM v Commission

text:
               26.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/39

         Action brought on 27 February 2008 — CPEM v Commission
   (Case T-106/08)
   (2008/C 107/67)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Centre de promotion de l'emploi par la micro-entreprise (CPEM) (Marseille, France) (represented by: C. Bonnefoi, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annulment of the debit note;

               —

               recognise a right to damages for public detriment to the reputation of a body acting in the context of a task of general interest (estimated at EUR 100 000);

               —

               repayment of lawyers' fees and the costs of legal assistance made necessary, proof of which can be provided.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By this action, the applicant seeks annulment of the Commission decision contained in debit note No 3240912189 of 17 December 2007 relating to Commission Decision C(2007) 4645 of 4 October 2007, cancelling, following an OLAF report, the assistance granted by the European Social Fund to finance, by way of a global subsidy, a pilot project carried out by the applicant (1) the annulment of which is sought by the applicant in Case T-444/07 CPME v Commission
       (2).
   In support of its application, the applicant submits, principally, that the Commission has erred in law and exceeded its powers in so far as the contested debit note was not addressed to the actual debtor. By relying on infringement of Article 135 of the Financial Regulation No 1605/2002 (3), it submits that the debit note should have been addressed to the body which played a financially responsible role in the project concerned, which actually received the grant from the European Social Fund.
   Moreover, the applicant submits that the fact that the debit note was addressed to it damages its image and its credibility with respect to its financial partners given the general interest task it performs.

      (1)  Commission Decision C(1999) 2645 of 17 August 1999, amended by Decision No C(2001) 2144 of 18 September 2001.

      (2)  OJ 2008 C 37, p. 29.

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1).


title: Case C-84/03: Action brought on 26 February 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

text:
26.4.2003              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                       C 101/25
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
Medico-technical laboratory, radiology and orthoptic services             In 2000 the Commission received a complaint from an
may not be exercised on an independent basis in Austria. For              economic operator alleging wrongful implementation in Itali-
the exercise of those three professions, an employment                    an law of Council Directive 89/655/EEC ( 1) of 30 November
relationship is necessary. A member of those professional                 1989 concerning the minimum safety and health requirements
categories from another Member State, where the exercise of               for the use of work equipment by workers at work (second
those professions on an independent basis is entirely normal,             individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of
therefore has no opportunity to carry on his or her profession            Directive 89/391/EEC).
in Austria as an independent. That national measure therefore
undoubtedly constitutes an obstacle to the freedom of estab-
lishment and the freedom to provide services.                             Despite being contacted by the Commission on numerous
                                                                          occasions, the Italian authorities have failed to provide any
                                                                          information on the complainant’s allegations. That failure
                                                                          to communicate information repeatedly requested by the
The Commission finds the Republic of Austria’s argument to                Commission constitutes a failure to fulfil the obligation,
justify that measure unconvincing. It has not been sufficiently           imposed on Member States by Article 10 EC, to offer genuine
demonstrated that salaried employment relationships in the                cooperation to the Community institutions.
paramedical sector concerned are in themselves sufficient to
ensure, or at least better able to ensure, a higher level of health.
The prohibition under Austrian law of the exercise of those               (1 ) OJ L 393 of 30.12.1989, p. 13.
three professions on an independent basis constitutes an
unjustified restriction and therefore an infringement of the
freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services
laid down by Articles 43 and 49 EC.
                                                                          Action brought on 26 February 2003 by the Commission
                                                                          of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                                Spain
Action brought on 25 February 2003 by the Commission                                                (Case C-84/03)
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                                (2003/C 101/42)
                          (Case C-82/03)
                         (2003/C 101/41)                                  An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
                                                                          the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 Febru-
                                                                          ary 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                          represented by G. Valero Jordana and K. Wiedner, with an
                                                                          address for service in Luxembourg.
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 25 February
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,                       The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
represented by Antonio Aresu, acting as Agent.
                                                                          1.    declare that, by failing correctly to incorporate into
                                                                                national law Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                     1993 coordinating procedures for the award of public
                                                                                supply contracts ( 1) and Council Directive 93/37/EEC of
                                                                                14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures
a)    find that the Italian Republic, by failing to offer the                   for the award of public works contracts ( 2) and, in
      Commission any genuine cooperation in a case concern-                     particular:
      ing the health and safety of workers, has failed to fulfil its
      obligations under Article 10 EC, and
                                                                                —     by excluding from the scope of Royal Legislative
                                                                                Decree 2/2000 of 16 June approving the revised
b)    order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                                    and codified Public Contracts Law by, specifically,
 ---pagebreak--- C 101/26               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                           26.4.2003
            Article 1(3) thereof private-law undertakings fulfil-              for civil uses ( 1), or in any event by failing to inform the
            ling the criteria referred to in the three indents of              Commission of those provisions, the Grand-Duchy of
            the second subparagraph of Article 1(b) of each of                 Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
            the abovementioned directives;                                     directive;
      —     by providing an absolute exclusion from the scope            —     order the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
            of the Public Contracts Law by Article 3(1)(c)
            thereof for cooperation agreements between public
            authorities and other public undertakings including,
            therefore, agreements which are public contracts for         Pleas in law and main arguments
            the purposes of the directives; and
                                                                         The period within which the directive had to be transposed
      —     by permitting, in Article 141(a) and Article 182(a)
            and (g) of the Public Contracts Law, the negotiated          expired on 30 June 1994.
            procedure to be used in two cases which are not
            provided for in the directives;                              (1 ) OJ L 121 of 15.5.1993, p. 20.
      the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations
      under Community law;
2.    order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                                                                         Action brought on 28 February 2003 by Commission of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           the European Communities against Portuguese Republic
                                                                                (Case C-93/03)
These are apparent from the form of order sought.
                                                                                (2003/C 101/44)
( 1) OJ L 199 of 9.8.1993, p. 1.
( 2) OJ L 199 of 9.8.1993, p. 54.
                                                                         An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
                                                                         before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                         28 February 2003 by the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities, represented by Karen Banks and Miguel França,
                                                                         acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
Action brought on 27 February 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Grand-Duchy                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
                         of Luxembourg
                                                                         —     declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force the
                                                                               laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary
                          (Case C-89/03)
                                                                               to comply with Directive 98/71/EC (1) of the European
                                                                               Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 on
                         (2003/C 101/43)                                       the legal protection of designs or, in any event, by failing
                                                                               to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the
                                                                               Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                               under Article 19 of that directive;
An action against the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-             —     order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
ties on 27 February 2003 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by L. Ström and B. Stromsky, acting
as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:                                                        The period prescribed for implementation of the directive
                                                                         expired on 28 October 2001.
—     declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,
      regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
      comply with Council Directive 93/15/EEC of 5 April                 (1 ) OJ L 289 of 28 october 1998, p. 28.
      1993 on the harmonisation of the provisions relating to
      the placing on the market and supervision of explosives


title: Case T-41/14: Action brought on 15 January 2014 — Argo Development and Manufacturing v OHIM — Clapbanner (Advertising articles)

text:
               28.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/22

         Action brought on 15 January 2014 — Argo Development and Manufacturing v OHIM — Clapbanner (Advertising articles)
   (Case T-41/14)
   2014/C 129/28
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Argo Development and Manufacturing Ltd (Ra'anana, Israel) (represented by: B. Brisset, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Clapbanner Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 October 2013 given in Case R 981/2012-3;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community design in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: A design for the product ‘advertising articles’ — registered under No 1684325-0001

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

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community design: The applicant

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: It was alleged that the design lacked novelty (Article 5 CDR) and individual character (Article 6 CDR)

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the contested RCD invalid

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Granted the appeal and dismissed the application for a declaration of invalidity

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 4, 5 and 6 CDR.


title: Case C-262/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 1 June 2015 — GD European Land Systems — Steyr GmbH

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/22

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 1 June 2015 — GD European Land Systems — Steyr GmbH
   (Case C-262/15)
   (2015/C 294/27)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: GD European Land Systems — Steyr GmbH

      Respondent authority: Zollamt Eisenstadt Flughafen Wien

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the exception specified in point (c) of note 1 to Chapter 93 of the Combined Nomenclature (Part II of Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1001/2013 of 4 October 2013) (2), which is worded ‘armoured fighting vehicles (heading 8710)’, apply also to ‘parts thereof’?

               2.

               Must note 3 to Section XVII of the Combined Nomenclature be interpreted as meaning that a ‘weapons station (armoured turret)’ which may be used on armoured fighting vehicles or on ‘mobile maritime transport systems’ or in stationary installations must be classified under heading 8710 as a part of an armoured fighting vehicle because that weapons station was imported by the manufacturer of armoured fighting vehicles for the production or assembly of armoured fighting vehicles and is used in fact for that purpose?

      (1)  OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2013 L 290, p. 1.


title: Case T-599/14: Order of the General Court of 15 September 2015 — Souruh v Council

text:
               16.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/60

         Order of the General Court of 15 September 2015 — Souruh v Council
   (Case T-599/14) (1)

   (2015/C 381/80)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 361, 13.10.2014.


title: Case T-277/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 July 2006 — Vitakraft-Werke Wührmann v OHIM — Johnson's Veterinary Products (VITACOAT) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark VITACOAT — Earlier national word marks VITAKRAFT — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/38

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 July 2006 — Vitakraft-Werke Wührmann v OHIM — Johnson's Veterinary Products (VITACOAT)
   (Case T-277/04) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark VITACOAT - Earlier national word marks VITAKRAFT - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2006/C 224/82)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Vitakraft-Werke Wührmann & Sohn GmbH & Co. KG (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: U. Sander, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Johnson's Veterinary Products Ltd (Sutton Coldfield, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Edenborough, Barrister)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM, of 27 April 2004 (Case R 560/2003-1) regarding opposition proceedings between Vitakraft-Werke Wührmann & Sohn GmbH & Co. KG and Johnson's Veterinary Products Ltd
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to bear its own costs, and pay the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and the intervener before the Court of First Instance.

      (1)  OJ C 300, 4.12.2004.


title: Case T-258/14: Action brought on 24 April 2014  — Luxembourg v Commission

text:
               14.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/20

         Action brought on 24 April 2014 — Luxembourg v Commission
   (Case T-258/14)
   2014/C 223/24
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: L. Delvaux, Agent, and P.-E. Partsch, A. Steichen, D. Waelbroeck, lawyers, and D. Slater, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the present action admissible and well founded;

               —

               annul the Commission decision of 24 March 2014 requiring Luxembourg to provide information relating to the practice of issuing anticipatory decisions in tax matters;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present action, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision C (2014) 1986 final by which it directed the applicant, pursuant to Article 10(3) of Regulation No 659/1999, (1) to provide a complete list of anticipatory decisions made in 2010, 2011 and 2012 in favour of Luxembourg undertakings belonging to a group or legal structure involving one or more undertakings located outside the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 10 of Regulation No 659/1999 and of the rights of the defence, inasmuch as the Commission does not have the minimum amount of information required to justify the requests for information set out in the injunction, since its investigative powers are conditional upon its being in prior possession of sufficient factual and objective information, capable of giving rise to a reasonable suspicion of misconduct. The applicant argues that the Commission is making a ‘speculative request for information’ which is incompatible with the rights of the defence.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality, inasmuch as (i) the information that the Commission already has in its possession is unrelated to the nature and scope of the information requested from the applicant and (ii) the injunction to provide information goes beyond what is appropriate and necessary for the achievement of the Commission’s objectives.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging failure to give sufficient reasons, as the Commission has neither explained the reasons for the contested injunction nor clearly indicated the presumed facts that it intends to investigate.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 4 and 5 TEU and failure to respect the competence of the Member States in matters of direct taxation.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 9 August 1995 in Case T-585/93: Stichting Greenpeace Council (Greenpeace International) and Others v. Commission of the European Communities (Inadmissibility)

text:
 11 . 11 . 95       | EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                             No C 299/21
       Removal from the register of Case T-555 /93 (')                3 . the Kingdom of Spain shall hear its own costs.
                          ( 95 /C 299/42 )
                                                                      (') OJ No C 43 , 12 . 2 . 1994 .
               (Language of the case: English)
By order of 9 August 1 995 the President of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal                    Removal from the register of Case T-15/94 (')
from the register of Case T-555/93 : David Alwyn Jones v.                                       ( 95 /C 299/44 )
Council of the European Union .
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(') OJ No C 338 , 15 . 12 . 1993 .
                                                                      By order of 12 September 1995 the President of the Fourth
                                                                      Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                      Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                      T-15/94 : Dimitrios Benecos v. Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities .
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                      (>) OJ No C 76 , 12 . 3 . 1994 .
                       of 9 August 1995
in Case T-5 85/93 : Stichting Greenpeace Council
( Greenpeace International ) and Others v. Commission of
                the European Communities (')
                        (Inadmissibility)                                   Removal from the register of Case T- 18/94 (')
                         ( 95/C 299/43 )                                                        ( 95 /C 299/45 )
               (Language of the case: English)                                      (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     By order of 12 September 1995 the President of the Fourth
In Case T-585/93 , Stichting Greenpeace Council                       Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
( Greenpeace International ), Domingo Viera Gonzalez ,                Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
Pablo Guedes Garcia , Jose Ignacio Trojaola Chavez, Aurora           T- 1 8/94 : Dimitrios Benecos v. Commission of the European
Gonzalez Gonzalez, Pedro Melián Castro, Caridad Sanchez               Communities .
Artiles, Jose Juan Melián Melián , Carmen Guadalupe
Gomez Castro , Clara Donate Hernandez , Balbina Martin                (') OJ No C 76 , 12 . 3 . 1994 .
Espínola , Jose Hernandez Morin , German Peña Hernandez ,
Antonio Cabrera Expósito, Valentin Hernandez Vaquero ,
Peter Reinhard , Julio Gonzalez Dominguez, Tagoror
Ecologista Alternativo and Comisión Canaria contra la
Contaminación , represented by Philippe Sands and Mark
Hoskins, Barristers, of the Bar of England and Wales ,                      Removal from the register of Case T-19/94 (')
instructed by Leigh , Day & Co ., Solicitors with an address                                    ( 95/C 299/46 )
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jean-Paul
Noesen , 18 Rue des Glacis, against Commission of the                               (Language of the case: French)
European Communities ( Agent: David Gilmour ), supported
by Kingdom of Spain ( Agents : Alberto Navarro Gonzalez               By order of 12 September 1995 the President of the Fourth
and Gloria Calvo Diaz ) — application for annulment of the            Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
decision alleged to have been adopted by the Commission               Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
between 7 March 1991 and 29 October 1993 to disburse to              T-19/94 : Dimitrios Benecos v. Commission of the European
the Kingdom of Spain a sum of the order of ECU 1 1 000 000            Communities .
or 12 000 000 pursuant to Decision C(91 ) 440 concerning
financial assistance provided by the European Regional                (') OJ No C 76 , 12 . 3 . 1994 .
Development Fund for the construction of two power
stations in the Canary Islands ( Gran Canaria and Tenerife )
— the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber ), composed of
J. L. Cruz Vilaça , President, A. Kalogeropoulos and V. Tiili ,
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 9 August                       Removal from the register of Case T-69/94 (')
1995 , the operative part of which is as follows :
                                                                                ( 95/C 299/47 )
 1 . the application is dismissed as inadmissible;                                  ( Language of the case: French)
2 . the applicants shall jointly and severally bear the               By order of 12 September 1995 the President of the Fourth
     costs ;                                                          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European


title: Case C-221/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 February 2015 — H v Court of Justice of the European Union (Appeal — Emoluments applicable to members of the Court of Justice of the European Union — Former member of the Civil Service Tribunal — Application for membership of the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme (JSIS) — Decision — Refusal — Appeal procedures — Lateness — Inadmissibility)

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/23

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 February 2015 — H v Court of Justice of the European Union
   (Case C-221/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Emoluments applicable to members of the Court of Justice of the European Union - Former member of the Civil Service Tribunal - Application for membership of the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme (JSIS) - Decision - Refusal - Appeal procedures - Lateness - Inadmissibility))
   (2015/C 138/30)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: H (represented by: S. Sagias, dikigoros)

      Other party to the proceedings: Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: A.V. Placco, agent)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders H to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 235, 21.7.2014.


title: Case C-327/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Ministero dello Sviluppo economico, Autorità per la vigilanza sui contratti pubblici di lavori, servizi e forniture v SOA Nazionale Costruttori — Organismo di Attestazione SpA (Articles 101 TFEU, 102 TFEU and 106 TFEU — Public undertakings and undertakings to which special or exclusive rights have been granted — Undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest — Definition — Bodies tasked with checking and certifying compliance by undertakings carrying out public works with the conditions required by the law — Article 49 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Restriction — Justification — Protection of recipients of services — Status of certification services)

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/15

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Ministero dello Sviluppo economico, Autorità per la vigilanza sui contratti pubblici di lavori, servizi e forniture v SOA Nazionale Costruttori — Organismo di Attestazione SpA
   (Case C-327/12) (1)

   (Articles 101 TFEU, 102 TFEU and 106 TFEU - Public undertakings and undertakings to which special or exclusive rights have been granted - Undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest - Definition - Bodies tasked with checking and certifying compliance by undertakings carrying out public works with the conditions required by the law - Article 49 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Restriction - Justification - Protection of recipients of services - Status of certification services)
   2014/C 52/24
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Ministero dello Sviluppo economico, Autorità per la vigilanza sui contratti pubblici di lavori, servizi e forniture

      Defendant: SOA Nazionale Costruttori — Organismo di Attestazione SpA

      Intervening parties: Associazione nazionale Società Organismi di Attestazione (Unionsoa), SOA CQOP SpA

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Consiglio di Stato — Interpretation of Articles 101 TFEU, 102 TFEU and 106 TFEU — Concepts of ‘public undertakings and undertakings to which Member States grant special or exclusive rights’ and ‘Undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest’ — Bodies responsible for verifying and attesting to the fact that potential subcontractors for public works comply with the conditions laid down by law — National legislation imposing minimum tariffs on those bodies.

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 101 TFEU, 102 TFEU and 106 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes on companies classified as attestation organisations (Società Organismi di Attestazione) a scheme of minimum tariffs for certification services offered to undertakings seeking to participate in procedures for the award of public works contracts
   Such national legislation constitutes a restriction of the freedom of establishment within the meaning of Article 49 TFEU, but is suitable for attaining the objective of protecting the recipients of the services in question. It is for the referring court to determine whether, in the light of, inter alia, the method of calculating the minimum tariffs, particularly in the light of the number of categories of work for which the certificate is drawn up, that national legislation goes beyond what is necessary to attain that objective.

      (1)  OJ C 295, 29.9.2012.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 September 2002 in Case T-254/01: Giuseppe Di Pietro v Court of Auditors of the European Communities (Officials — Appointment — Preliminary administrative procedure — Procedural error — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
21.12.2002             EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 323/35
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: R. de                       1.    Dismissed the action as manifestly inadmissible;
Avelar Santos and F-Clotuche-Duvieusart) — application for
annulment of the Commission’s decision of 31 March 2000                     2.    Ordered each party to bear its own costs.
refusing to allow the applicant travelling time in connection
with special leave for the purpose of voting — the Court of
First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of J. D. Cooke,
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 3 of 5.1.02.
President, and R. García-Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges;
H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 30 September 2002, in
which it:
1.    Dismissed the action as manifestly unfounded;
2.    Ordered the applicant to bear the whole of the costs.                        ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 10 September 2002
( 1) OJ C 108 of 7.4.01.
                                                                            in Case T-287/01: Bioelettrica SpA v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities ( 1)
                                                                            (Article 238 EC — Arbitration clause — Thermie pro-
                                                                            gramme — Unilateral termination of the contract by the
                                                                            Commission — Request that the case not proceed to judg-
                                                                                ment)
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                           (2002/C 323/58)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                      of 27 September 2002
in Case T-254/01: Giuseppe Di Pietro v Court of Auditors                    In Case T-287/01: Bioelettrica SpA, established in Pisa (Italy),
               of the European Communities ( 1)                             represented by O. Fabe Dal Negro, lawyer, against Commission
                                                                            of the European Communities (Agents: H. Støvlbaek, R. Amo-
                                                                            rosi and M. Moretto) — application seeking, first, a declaration
(Officials — Appointment — Preliminary administrative                       that the termination notified by the Commission on 6 Septem-
  procedure — Procedural error — Manifest inadmissibility)                  ber 2001 of contract BM 1007/94 IT/DE/UK/PO, of 12 Decem-
                                                                            ber 1994 on the implementation of the project entitled ‘Energy
                                                                            Farm: an IGCC plant for the production of electricity and heat
                                                                            through gasification of SRF biomass (Phase 1)’ is null and
                         (2002/C 323/57)                                    unlawful and, secondly, an order requiring the Commission to
                                                                            make good the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a
                                                                            result of the Commission’s conduct — the Court of First
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                         Instance (Third Chamber), composed of M. Jaeger, President,
                                                                            K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an
                                                                            order on 10 September 2002, the operative part of which is
                                                                            as follows:
In Case T-254/01: Giuseppe Di Pietro, residing in Messina,                  1.    The request that the case not proceed to judgment is rejected.
Italy, represented by G. Monforte, lawyer, against Court of
Auditors of the European Communities (Agents: J.-M. Stenier,                2.    Costs are reserved.
P. Giusta and B. Schäfer) — application for annulment of the
Court of Auditors’ decision of 22 February 2001 appointing
the Secretary-General of that institution — the Court of First              (1 ) OJ 2002 C 31.
Instance (Third Chamber), composed of M. Jaeger, President,
and K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made
an order on 27 September 2002, in which it: