title: Case T-575/14: Action brought on 28 July 2014 — Larymnis Larko v Commission

text:
               10.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 395/52

      Action brought on 28 July 2014 — Larymnis Larko v Commission
      (Case T-575/14)
      (2014/C 395/65)
      Language of the case: Greek

         Parties

         Applicant: Εllininiki Μetalleftiki kai Μetallourgiki Larymnis Larko SA (Kallithea Attikis, Greece) (represented by: V. Koulouris, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the General Court should:

                  —

                  annul and set aside the Commission Decision of 27 March 2014 addressed to the Hellenic Republic [SG–Greffe (2014) D/4621/28/03/2014] in relation to the State aid implemented by the Hellenic Republic for the limited company named ‘General Mining and Metallurgical Company NEA LARKO’ [ΝΕW LARKO], Case No SA.34572 (2013/C) (ex 2013ΝΝ), in so far as concerns the measures 2, 3, 4 and 6, which measures according to the contested decision constitute State aid incompatible with the internal market;

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicant, in the first place, maintains that it has a clear legal interest to seek the annulment of the contested decision, since the decision affects the applicant directly and distinguishes it individually just as in the case of the person addressed, and, in the second place, puts forward three pleas in law in support of annulment.

                  1.

                  The first plea in law is based on the infringement of the obligation to state reasons, under Article 296 TFEU.

                              —

                              The applicant maintains that: (a) as is apparent from the contested decision itself, the Commission arrived at its conclusions in relation to all the examined actions/measures of the Greek State without being in possession of adequate information on them. More specifically, as regards the measures 2, 4 and 6 (State guarantees corresponding to the years 2008, 2010 and 2011), the contested decision plainly states that the Commission did not have information that those guarantees had been triggered. In addition, as regards measure 3 (the 2009 share capital increase), the Commission accepts that it does not know when a substantial part of the share capital increase took place; (b) the contested decision also lacks any statement of reasons and therefore fails to define the relevant product market in order to determine whether there was created an advantage for ΝΕW LARKO and a competitive disadvantage for others, and (c) in reality, in relation to measures 4 and 6, it was only the Greek State which acquired an advantage in this case, since instead of making a payment to ΝΕW LARKO for the purpose of refund of taxes (income tax and VAT) the Greek State granted to it guarantees, at a premium.

                  2.

                  The second plea in law is based on the erroneous assessment of the facts (error of fact), together with misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 296(2) and Article 107(1) TFEU.

                              —

                              The applicant maintains that: (a) the Greek State, both in the cases of the abovementioned guarantees (measures 2, 4 and 6) and in the case of measure 3 (the 2009 share capital increase in ΝΕW LARKO with the payment of cash), acted ‘as a reasonable market investor’. Any reasonable, rational investor would provide a guarantee to a company in which it had its own interests (as applies to ΝΕW LARKO in this case in relation to the Greek State) for amounts which are covered by its own corresponding obligations to its own undertaking (the obligation of the Greek State to repay income tax and VAT to ΝΕW LARKO). A fortiori in this case where the Greek State expected to profit through the sale of ΝΕW LARKO. It must be emphasised that the guarantees concerned were not triggered and (b) the contested decision did not examine the size of the undertaking under consideration and whether by reason of its size and its general position in the product’s overall market sector it would be able to affect the internal market for the ‘product’. It must be noted that the size of ΝΕW LARKO is such that the State aid under consideration would not be able to have any influence on the internal market.

                  3.

                  The third plea in law is based on the infringement of the principle of proportionality.

                              —

                              The applicant maintains that even if it were accepted that the abovementioned guarantees constitute prohibited State aid, the contested decision should be annulled, because it infringes the principle of proportionality in respect of the determination of the amount of the guarantee to be recovered. More specifically, as regards the determination of the amount of the guarantees to be recovered (such as the measures 2, 4 and 6), the Commission failed to take into account that the guarantees concerned were not triggered and, consequently, it cannot be admitted under law or under good business practice that ΝΕW LARKO (or the third party successor undertaking) should be called upon to pay back exactly the same amount in respect of guarantees which were not triggered, since that amount had been covered by the guarantee from the Greek State, which very largely provided the guarantees concerned while covered by its own obligations to the borrower ΝΕW LARKO.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of  10 January 2006  in Case C-147/04 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État) De Groot en Slot Allium BV, Bejo Zaden BV v Ministre de l'Economie, des Finances et de l'Industrie, Ministre de l'Agriculture, de l'Alimentation, de la Pêche et des Affaires rurales (Directive 70/458/EEC — Marketing of vegetable seed — Article 2 — Directive 92/33/EEC — Marketing of vegetable propagating and planting material, other than seed — Annex II — Common catalogue of vegetable species — National legislation permitting only varieties of shallots produced by vegetative propagation to be marketed as  shallots  — Article 28 EC — Consumer protection)

text:
               25.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/5

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 10 January 2006
   in Case C-147/04 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État) De Groot en Slot Allium BV, Bejo Zaden BV v Ministre de l'Economie, des Finances et de l'Industrie, Ministre de l'Agriculture, de l'Alimentation, de la Pêche et des Affaires rurales (1)

   (Directive 70/458/EEC - Marketing of vegetable seed - Article 2 - Directive 92/33/EEC - Marketing of vegetable propagating and planting material, other than seed - Annex II - Common catalogue of vegetable species - National legislation permitting only varieties of shallots produced by vegetative propagation to be marketed as ‘shallots’ - Article 28 EC - Consumer protection)
   (2006/C 48/09)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-147/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Conseil d'Etat (France), made by decision of 4 February 2004, received at the Court on 22 March 2004, in the proceedings De Groot en Slot Allium BV, Bejo Zaden BV against Ministre de l'Economie, des Finances et de l'Industrie, Ministre de l'Agriculture, de l'Alimentation, de la Pêche et des Affaires rurales, intervener: Comité économique agricole régional fruits et légumes de la Région Bretagne (Cerafel), the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, J. Makarczyk, C. Gulmann, G. Arestis (Rapporteur) and J. Klučka, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General, K. Sztranc, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 10 January 2006, the operative part of which is as follows:
   Council Directive 70/458/EEC of 29 September 1970 on the marketing of vegetable seed, as amended by Council Directive 88/380/EEC of 13 December 1988, precludes the entry of the varieties ‘Ambition’ and ‘Matador’ in the common catalogue in the section relating to shallots grown from seed.
   Article 28 EC precludes national legislation, such as the Order of 17 May 1990 on trade in shallots, which allows only vegetables produced by vegetative propagation to be marketed as ‘shallots’ and excludes those grown from seed produced and marketed under that name in other Member States.

      (1)  OJ C 106 of 30.04.2004.


title: Case C-58/15: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Germany) — Firma Theodor Pfister v Landkreis Main-Spessart (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Health inspections — Official feed and food controls — Financing of controls — Inspection costs relating to slaughter — Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 — Directive 85/73/EEC — Possibility of levying fees covering the actual cost of inspection, exceeding the fees set by that directive)

text:
               22.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 68/19

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Germany) — Firma Theodor Pfister v Landkreis Main-Spessart
   (Case C-58/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Health inspections - Official feed and food controls - Financing of controls - Inspection costs relating to slaughter - Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 - Directive 85/73/EEC - Possibility of levying fees covering the actual cost of inspection, exceeding the fees set by that directive))
   (2016/C 068/23)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Firma Theodor Pfister

      Defendant: Landkreis Main-Spessart

      Operative part of the judgment

   The second sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 27(3) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1791/2006 of 20 November 2006, must be interpreted as authorising, for the transitional period of 2007, the levying of fees for the costs occasioned by inspections and controls relating to meat hygiene so as to cover the costs incurred by the competent authority, in accordance with Council Directive 85/73/EEC of 29 January 1985 on the financing of veterinary inspections and controls covered by Directives 89/662/EEC, 90/425/EEC, 90/675/EEC and 91/496/EEC, as amended by Council Directive 97/79/EC of 18 December 1997.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 26.5.2015.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 2 October 1997 in Case C-208/96: Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 92/119/EEC - Failure to transpose)

text:
C 357/6                  EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    22 . 11 . 97
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          ( Sixth Chamber)                                                      ( Second Chamber)
                         of 2 October 1997                                                      of 9 October 1997
in     Case    C-208/96: Commission of the European                    in Case C-67/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
            Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium (')                      the Tariefcommissie ): Rank Xerox Manufacturing
                                                                       (Nederland ) BV v. Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en
(Failure of Member State to fulfil its obligations —                                                 Accijnzen (^
        Directive 92/119/EEC — Failure to transpose)
                                                                       (Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Copiers
                            ( 97/C 357/10 )                            and fax machines — Classification in the combined
                                                                                nomenclature)
                                                                                ( 97/C 357/11 )
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-208/96 : Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: Hubert van Vliet) v. Kingdom of
Belgium ( Agent: Jan Devadder) — application for a                     In Case C-67/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
declaration that, by not adopting within the prescribed
period the laws, regulations and 'administrative provisions            of the EC Treaty from the Tariefcommissie
necessary to comply with Council Directive 92/119/EEC                  (Administrative Court for Customs and Excise )
of 17 December 1992 introducing general Community                      (Netherlands), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
measures for the control of certain animal diseases and                pending before that court between Rank Xerox
specific measures relating to swine vesicular disease ( OJ             Manufacturing (Nederland ) BV and Inspecteur der
L 62, 15 . 3 . 1993 , p. 69 ), the Kingdom of Belgium has              Invoerrechten en Accijnzen — on the interpretation of
failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty — the             Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 2587/91 of 26 July
Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: G. F. Mancini,                   1991 amending Annex I to Council Regulation ( EEC)
                                                                       No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and
President of the Chamber, J. L. Murray, C. N. Kakouris,
P. J. G. Kapteyn and G. Hirsch ( Rapporteur ), Judges; P.              on the Common Customs Tariff ( OJ L 259, 16 . 9 . 1991 ,
Leger, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a              p. 1 ) — the Court ( Second Chamber), composed of: R.
judgment on 2 October 1997, in which it:                               Schintgen, President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini and
                                                                       G. Hirsch ( Rapporteur), Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate
                                                                       General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
                                                                       given a judgment on 9 October 1997, in which it has
                                                                       ruled :
 1 . declares that, by not adopting within the prescribed
      period the laws, regulations and administrative
      provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
      92/119/EEC of 17 December 1992 introducing general
                                                                       Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2587/91 of 26 July
      Community measures for the control of certain animal
                                                                       1991 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC)
      diseases and specific measures relating to swine                 No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and
      vesicular disease, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed             on the Common Customs Tariff must be interpreted as
      to fulfil its obligations under Article 27 thereof;
                                                                       meaning that apparatuses such as the Rank Xerox 3010
                                                                       and Rank Xerox 3010 Editor, comprising a scanning
                                                                       device (scanner), a digital storage device (memory) and a
                                                                       printing device (laser printer), fall within sub-heading
2. orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                     9009 12 00 of that Regulation.
 (') OJ C 247, 24 . 8 . 1996 .                                         (*) OJ C 101 , 22 . 4 . 1995 .


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 15 September 1998 in Case T-54/96: Oleifici Italiani SpA and Fratelli Rubino Industrie Olearie SpA v Commission of the European Communities (Agriculture - Financing of intervention measures - Suspension of all payment due for storage of a consignment of olive oil pending verification of its characteristics - Action for annulment and for damages)

text:
C 327/22             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                24.10.98
2. Orders the Commission to pay the costs;                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 15 September 1998
3. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and                   in Case T-94/96: Martin Hagleitner v Commission of the
     Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.                                          European Communities (1)
                                                                    (Officials Ð Open competition Ð Selection board Ð
(1) OJ C 180, 22.6.1996.                                                          Examiners Ð Correction of tests)
                                                                                (98/C 327/39)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                    In Case T-94/96: Martin Hagleitner, residing in Vienna,
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                    represented by Harald Svoboda, of the Vienna Bar, with
                    of 15 September 1998                            an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                    Maître Alex Schmitt, 62 Avenue Guillaume, against
in Case T-54/96: Oleifici Italiani SpA and Fratelli Rubino          Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Julian
Industrie Olearie SpA v Commission of the European                  Currall and Bertrand Wägenbaur) Ð application for
                       Communities (1)                              annulment of the measures adopted by the Commission in
(Agriculture Ð Financing of intervention measures Ð                 the context of Competition COM/A/904 or, at the very
Suspension of all payment due for storage of a                      least, the decision of the Selection Board in that
consignment of olive oil pending verification of its                competition not to admit the applicant to the oral tests Ð
 characteristics Ð Action for annulment and for damages)            the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed
                                                                    of A. Kalogeropoulos, President, and C. W. Bellamy and J.
                        (98/C 327/38)                               Pirrung, Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for
                                                                    the Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 September 1998
                                                                    in which it:
                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                    1. Annuls the decision of the Commission contained in
In Case T-54/96: Oleifici Italiani SpA, established at                  Mr Liikanen's letter of 18 September 1995 rejecting
Ostuni, Italy, Fratelli Rubino Industrie Olearie SpA,                   the applicant's request of 7 August 1995 for
established at Bari, Italy, represented by Antonio Tizzano,             verification and an enquiry as regards the proper
Gian Michele Roberti and Francesco Sciaudone, of the                    conduct of the assessment procedure and the results of
Naples Bar, 36 Place du Grand Sablon, Brussels, against                 Competition COM/A/904;
Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
Eugenio de March and Alberto Dal Ferro) Ð application,              2. Dismisses the remainder of the application;
first, for annulment of the letter of 7 February 1996 from
the Commission to inter alia the Italian authorities and
the Azienda di Stato per gli Interventi nel Mercato                 3. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
Agricolo, the Italian intervention agency, allegedly
ordering the blocking of any payment due for the storage            (1) OJ C 247, 24.8.1996.
of olive oil for the 1991/1992 and 1992/1993 marketing
years, pending verification of its wax content, and,
second, for compensation for the damage allegedly
suffered by the applicants as a result of the Commission's
conduct Ð the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),
composed of: A. Kalogeropoulos, President, C. W. Bellamy
and J. Pirrung, Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator,          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 September
                                                                                of 17 July 1998
1998, in which it:
                                                                    in Case T-118/96: Thai Bicycle Industry Co. Ltd v
                                                                                Council of the European Union (1)
1. Dismisses the application;
                                                                    (Dumping Ð Normal value Ð Constructed value Ð
                                                                    Production costs Ð Selling, general and administrative
                                                                          expenses Ð Profit margin Ð OEM adjustment)
2. Orders the applicants to pay their own costs and to
     bear those incurred by the Commission jointly and                                       (98/C 327/40)
     severally.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
(1) OJ C 180, 22.6.1996.
                                                                    In Case T-118/96: Thai Bicycle Industry Co. Ltd,
                                                                    established in Samutprakarn (Thailand), represented by


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 22 October 1998 in Joined Cases C-308/96 and C-94/97 (references for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division, and the VAT and Duties Tribunal, London): Commissioners of Customs and Excise v. T. P. Madgett and R. M. Baldwin, and T. P. Madgett and R. M. Baldwin v. Commissioners of Customs and Excise (VAT - Article 26 of the Sixth VAT Directive - Scheme for travel agents and tour operators - Hotel undertakings - Accommodation and travel package - Basis of calculation of the margin)

text:
19.12.98             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 397/3
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    transactions consisting of services supplied partly by
                                                                       himself and partly by other taxable persons, the VAT
                      (Fifth Chamber)                                  scheme under that article applies solely to the services
                                                                       supplied by third parties. A trader may not be required
                    of 22 October 1998
                                                                       to calculate the part of the package corresponding to
in Joined Cases C-308/96 and C-94/97 (references for a                 the in-house services by the actual cost method where
preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of                   it is possible to identify that part of the package on
England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division, and the VAT                 the basis of the market value of services similar to
and Duties Tribunal, London): Commissioners of Customs                 those which form part of the package.
and Excise v. T. P. Madgett and R. M. Baldwin, and T. P.
Madgett and R. M. Baldwin v. Commissioners of Customs
                        and Excise (1)                            (1) OJ C 336, 9.11.1996, and
                                                                      OJ C 131, 26.4.1997.
(VAT Ð Article 26 of the Sixth VAT Directive Ð Scheme
for travel agents and tour operators Ð Hotel undertakings
Ð Accommodation and travel package Ð Basis of
                 calculation of the margin)
                       (98/C 397/04)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 22 October 1998
In Joined Cases C-308/96 and C-94/97: references to the           in Joined Cases C-9/97 and C-118/97 (references for a
Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the High            preliminary ruling from the Maaseutuelinkeinojen
Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench              Valituslautakunta (Finland): Raija-Liisa Jokela (C-9/97)
Division, and the VAT and Duties Tribunal, London, for                         and Laura Pitkäranta (C-118/97) (1)
preliminary rulings in the proceedings pending before
them between Commissioners of Customs and Excise and              (Definition of national court or tribunal' Ð Agriculture
T. P. Madgett and R. M. Baldwin, trading as The Howden            Ð Compensatory allowance for permanent natural
Court Hotel (Case C-308/96), and between T. P. Madgett                handicaps Ð Conditions for granting the allowance)
and R. M. Baldwin, trading as The Howden Court Hotel,
and Commissioners of Customs and Excise (Case C-94/97)                                     (98/C 397/05)
Ð on the interpretation of Article 26 of the Sixth Council
Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating
to turnover taxes Ð Common system of value added tax:                             (Language of the case: Finnish)
uniform basis of assessment (OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1)
Ð the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J.-P.
Puissochet, President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de
Almeida, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), L. Sevón and M.
Wathelet, Judges; P. LeÂger, Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
judgment on 22 October 1998, in which it has ruled:                         published in the European Court Reports)
1. Article 26 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC           In Joined Cases C-9/97 and C-118/97: References to the
    of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of            Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the
    the Member States relating to turnover taxes Ð                Maaseutuelinkeinojen Valituslautakunta (Finland) for a
    Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of            preliminary ruling in the proceedings brought by Raija-
    assessment aplies to a hotelier who, in return for a          Liisa Jokela (C-9/97) and Laura Pitkäranta, represented by
    package price, habitually offers his customers, in            her guardian Anne Pitkäranta (C-118/97) Ð application
    addition to accommodation, return transport between           for the interpretation of Articles 17 and 18 of Council
    certain distant pick-up points and the hotel and a            Regulation (EEC) No 2328/91 of 15 July 1991 on
    coach excursion during their stay, those transport            improving the efficiency of agricultural structures (OJ
    services being bought in from third parties.                  L 218, 6.8.1991, p. 1), and Article 1 of Council Directive
                                                                  75/268/EEC of 28 April 1975 on mountain and hill
                                                                  farming and farming in certain less-favoured areas (OJ
                                                                  L 128, 19.5.1975, p. 1) Ð the Court (Fifth Chamber),
2. On a proper construction of Article 26 of the Sixth            composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, P.
    Directive 77/388/EEC, where a trader subject to that          Jann (Rapporteur), J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, C.
    article effects, in return for a package price,               Gulmann and M. Wathelet, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate-


title: Case C-204/07 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 July 2008 — C.A.S. SpA v Commission of the European Communities (Appeals — EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Article 239 — Community Customs Code — Repayment and remission of import duty — Fruit juice concentrate from Turkey — Movement certificates — Falsification — Special situation)

text:
               13.9.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/3

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 July 2008 — C.A.S. SpA v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-204/07 P) (1)

   (Appeals - EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Article 239 - Community Customs Code - Repayment and remission of import duty - Fruit juice concentrate from Turkey - Movement certificates - Falsification - Special situation)
   (2008/C 236/04)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Appellant: C.A.S. SpA (represented by: D. Ehle, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Patakia and S. Schønberg, acting as Agents, assisted by M. Núñez Müller, Rechtsanwalt)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 6 February 2007 in Case T-23/03 C.A.S. v Commission dismissing the application for partial annulment of Commission Decision REC 10/01 of 18 October 2002 relating to a claim for remission of import duties recovered post-clearance on fruit juice concentrates from Turkey imported under certificates of origin which had proved to be false in a subsequent check — Omissions and errors on the part of the Turkish authorities and the Commission capable of creating a special situation within the meaning of Article 239 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) — Distribution of the burden of proof as to the existence of a special situation — Legal classification of the documents and facts
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 February 2007 in Case T-23/03 CAS v Commission;

               2.

               Annuls Article 2 of the Decision of the Commission of 18 October 2002 (REC 10/01);

               3.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs at both instances.

      (1)  OJ C 140, 23.6.2007.


title: Case T-15/15: Action brought on 13 January 2015  — Costa v Parliament

text:
               9.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 81/26

         Action brought on 13 January 2015 — Costa v Parliament
   (Case T-15/15)
   (2015/C 081/34)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Paolo Costa (Venice, Italy) (represented by: G. Orsoni and M. Romeo, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare the decision of the President of the European Parliament of 11 November 2014, notified on 28 November 2014, and all prior, connected or consecutive measures, to be null and void, pursuant to Articles 263 and 264 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

               —

               Order the European Parliament to pay the costs in their entirety.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present action is brought against Decision No 318 189 of the President of the European Parliament of 11 November 2014 concerning the suspension of the applicant’s retirement pension with effect from June 2010 and the recovery of the payments received by the applicant between July 2009 and May 2010.
   In support of his action, the applicant raises two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of rules of law, infringement of the Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament, and infringement of Article 12 of the regulation on life-annuities applicable to Italian Members.

                           —

                           The applicant alleges, in that regard, that there has been an infringement of Article 12(2a)(v) of the regulation on life-annuities applicable to Italian Members, to which reference is made in the Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament, in that it has been wrongly used to support the suspension of pension payments to the President of the Venice Port Authority.

                           —

                           In addition, he maintains that the President of an Italian Port Authority does not fall within the scope of Article 12(2a)(v) of that regulation, as that position — as was acknowledged by the Court of Justice in its judgment of 10 September 2014 in Case C-270/13 [Haralambidis] — is a specialised position awarded solely on the basis of a candidate’s proven professional skills in the fields of economics and transport; it does not entail any political ties, is completely separate from government appointments of a political nature, and does not involve the performance of political functions.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the Treaties and of rules of law, infringement of Articles 4, 6 and 13 of the Treaty on European Union, infringement of Article 1 of the Protocol to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) concerning the protection of property, breach of the principle of legitimate expectations, and breach of the principle of good faith.

                           —

                           In that regard, the applicant alleges infringement of Articles 4 and 13 TEU, which require the European Parliament — like the other EU Institutions — at all times to protect situations where legitimate expectations have been created, within the legal order of the European Union, by any of the persons who are part of that institution.

                           —

                           He also alleges breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and the principle of good faith, both of which are general and fundamental principles of EU law acknowledged and affirmed by the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which requires compliance with those principles at all times in cases concerning the repayment of sums paid to an individual in good faith.

                           —

                           Lastly, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 1 of the Protocol to the ECHR concerning the protection of property, to which reference is made in Article 6 TEU and which has the same binding force as the Treaties, which requires protection of the legitimate expectation engendered in an individual regarding his lawful receipt of monies to which he is entitled.


title: Case C-208/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 8 May 2006 — Medion AG v Hauptzollamt Duisburg

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 8 May 2006 — Medion AG v Hauptzollamt Duisburg
   (Case C-208/06)
   (2006/C 224/33)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Medion AG

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Duisburg
   Question referred
   Should a camcorder, which at the time of importation (1) is unable to record video signals from an external source, be classified under subheading 8525 4099 of the Combined Nomenclature, if its video interface can subsequently be reconfigured as a video input by means of activating certain switches, even though the manufacturer and the seller neither have mentioned nor support this possibility?

      (1)  Interpretation of Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1).


title: Case C-585/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Brașov (Romania) lodged on 18 December 2014 — Petru Chiş v Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Cluj

text:
               30.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/15

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Brașov (Romania) lodged on 18 December 2014 — Petru Chiş v Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Cluj
      (Case C-585/14)
      (2015/C 107/20)
      Language of the case: Romanian

         Referring court

      Curtea de Apel Cluj

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Petru Chiş

         Respondent: Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Cluj

         Questions referred

                  1)

                  In the light of Law No 9/2012 and the purpose of the tax provided for thereunder, must Article 110 TFEU be interpreted as precluding a Member State of the European Union from establishing a tax on pollutant emissions, applicable upon the registration of motor vehicles coming from another Member State of the European Union, where that tax does not apply to the registration of domestic motor vehicles, upon the transfer of ownership of such vehicles, in respect of which such a tax or a similar tax has already been paid, where the amount of such a residual tax incorporated into the value of the motor vehicles on the domestic market is lower than the new tax?

                  2)

                  In the light of Law No 9/2012 and the purpose of the tax provided for thereunder, must Article 110 TFEU be interpreted as precluding a Member State of the European Union from establishing a tax on pollutant emissions, applicable upon the registration of motor vehicles from another Member State of the European Union, but which, in the case of domestic motor vehicles, is payable only upon the transfer of ownership of such vehicles, the result being that a foreign vehicle cannot be used unless the tax is paid, but a domestic vehicle can be used for an unlimited time without the tax being paid, until the ownership of that vehicle is transferred, if ever, followed by its registration in the name of the new owner?


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 10 February 2000 in Case T-5/99 Pantelis Andriotis v Commission of the European Communities and European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP) (CEDEFOP — Procedure awarding a public services procurement contract — Call for tenders for architect's services — No notice publishing the results of the award procedure — Legal interest in bringing proceedings — Manifestly inadmissible)

text:
C 102/26                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           8.4.2000
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                               3. Until the present proceedings for interim relief have been disposed
                             INSTANCE                                           of, interest at the rate of 7,5 % shall continue to accrue on the
                                                                                fine imposed on the applicant, in accordance with Article 10 of
                                                                                Commission Decision 1999/243/EC of 16 September 1998.
                       of 15 December 1999
                                                                           (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.
in Case T-191/98 R II, Cho Yang Shipping Co. Ltd v
       Commission of the European Communities (1)
(Competition — Payment of a fine — Bank guarantee
— Proceedings for interim relief — Urgency — Interim
                              measures)
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                          (2000/C 102/52)
                                                                                of 10 February 2000
                                                                           in Case T-5/99 Pantelis Andriotis v Commission of the
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           European Communities and European Centre for the
                                                                               Development of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP) (1)
In Case T-191/98 R II, Cho Yang Shipping Co., Ltd, established
in Seoul, South Korea, represented by Nicolas Bromfield and                (CEDEFOP — Procedure awarding a public services procure-
Christopher Thomas, Solicitors, with an address for service in             ment contract — Call for tenders for architect’s services —
Luxembourg at the Chambers of De Bandt, Van Hecke, Lagae                   No notice publishing the results of the award procedure
and Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe v Commission of the European                     — Legal interest in bringing proceedings — Manifestly
Communities (agent: M. Richard Lyal) — application for                                                  inadmissible)
suspension of the operation of Commission Decision
1999/243/EC of 16 September 1998 relating to a proceeding
pursuant to Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty (Case                                                 (2000/C 102/53)
No IV/35.134 — Trans-Atlantic Conference Agreement) (OJ
1999 L 95, p. 1) in so far as, in Article 8, it imposes a fine of
EUR 13 750 000 on the applicant, the President of the Court                                      (Language of the case: Greek)
has made an order on 15 December 1999 according to which:
                                                                           In Case T-5/99: Pantelis Andriotis, residing in Thessaloniki
1. The obligation on the applicant to provide a bank guarantee in          (Greece), represented by Stella Ioannidou, of the Thessaloniki
    favour of the Commission as a condition for avoiding the               Bar, with an address in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Evelyn
    immediate recovery of the fine imposed on it by Article 8 of           Korn, 21 Rue de Nassau, against Commission of the European
    Commission Decision 1999/243/EC of 16 September 1998                   Communities (Agent: D. Triantafyllou) and European Centre
    relating to a proceeding pursuant to Articles 85 and 86 of the         for the Development of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP)
    EC Treaty (Case No IV/35.134 — Trans-Atlantic Conference               (Agents: H. Kallipolitis and B. Wägenbaur) application for
    Agreement) (OJ 1999 L 95, p. 1) is suspended until the order           annulment of the defendants’ implied decisions refusing to
    disposing of the present proceedings for interim relief has been       inform the applicant in writing of the publication in the
    made.                                                                  Official Journal of the European Communities of the award of
                                                                           the contract following the notice of CEDEFOP’s invitation to
                                                                           tender APO/97/005 (OJ No S 139 of 19. 7. 1997, p. 44) —
2. The suspension granted in paragraph 1 above shall cease to have         the Court (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, Presi-
    effect if the applicant does not lodge the following documents at      dent, and A. Potocki and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Regis-
    the Registry of the Court of First Instance before 1 April 2000:       trar, has made an order on 10 February 2000 in which it:
                                                                           1. Dismisses the application as manifestly inadmissible;
    (a) its annual accounts (‘balance sheet’; ‘statement of income’;
         ‘statement of cash flow’) for the financial year ending on
                                                                           2. Orders the applicant to bear his own costs and those incurred by
         31 December 1999, drawn up and certified by a firm of
                                                                                the Commission and CEDEFOP.
         auditors of international repute;
    (b) a letter from the firm referred to in (a) above certifying that    (1) OJ No C 71 of 13.3.1999.
         those annual accounts reflect the amount, by way of both
         principal sum and interest, of the fine imposed on the
         applicant by the contested decision.


C 20/28                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                23.1.1999
     judgment of the Court of Justice delivered in the                 Action brought on 3 December 1998 by the Commission
     context of a reference for a preliminary ruling (2)               of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
     rejecting grounds of alleged invalidity does not                                             Luxembourg
     constitute in the strict sense a declaration that the                                     (Case C-438/98)
     Community measure is valid Ð that is, compatible
     with the EC Treaty Ð but rather, where there is no                                         (1999/C 20/46)
     declaration of invalidity, merely an indication by the
     Court that its examination has disclosed no factor of
     such a kind as to affect the validity' of the measure,            An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
     from which it follows that there is nothing to prevent            brought before the Court of Justice of the European
     it from being declared invalid in a future judgment on            Communities on 3 December 1998 by the Commission of
     other grounds.                                                    the European Communities, represented by Antonio
                                                                       Aresu, of its Legal Service, and Nicola Yerrell, a national
                                                                       civil servant on secondment to its Legal Service, acting as
                                                                       Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Ð Infringement of the rights of the defence and the right              Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,
     to obtain effective legal protection owing to the failure         Kirchberg.
     by the Court of First Instance sufficiently to take into
     consideration, and in any event sufficiently to                   The Commission of the European Communities claims
     examine, each and every one of the appellant's claims             that the Court should:
     in the light of the new information presented to it
     after the written stage; manifest distortion of such
     evidence: in its Decisions 97/513/EC (3), 97/515/EC (4)           (a) declare that, by failing to adopt and/or to
     and 97/516/EC (5), the Commission considered that an                    communicate to the Commission the laws,
     alternative measure to protect the interests of goods in                regulations and administrative measures necessary in
     transit upon the entry into force of a ban on imports                   order to comply with Council Directive 96/97/EC of
     requiring such goods to undergo special analyses did                    20 December 1996 amending Directive 86/378/EEC
     not involve any risk to public health.                                  on the implementation of the principle of equal
                                                                             treatment for men and women in occupational social
                                                                             security schemes (1), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
                                                                             has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
Ð Breach of essential procedural requirements: at the                        Treaty; and
     sitting of the full Court of 11 January 1996, the case
     was assigned to a Chamber of five judges. The order
                                                                       (b) order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the
     of 2 May 1996 granting leave for the plea of
                                                                             costs.
     inadmissibility brought by the Commission to be
     considered at the same time as the substance of the
     case was adopted by the Second Chamber, Extended                  The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
     Composition. The appellant expressed surprise at the              Case C-429/98 (2); the time-limit prescribed by the
     application for the case to be assigned to a Chamber              directive expired on 1 July 1997.
     composed of three judges, but did not object. The
     appellant considers that the Second Chamber,
                                                                       (1) OJ L 46, 17.2.1997, p. 20.
     composed of three judges, is not competent to adopt
                                                                       (2) See page 23 of this Official Journal.
     the order appealed against, by which the applications
     for annulment and compensation were dismissed and
     the proceedings thus deemed closed.
(1) OJ C 229, 2.9.1995, p. 24.
(2) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 17 July 1997, in Case
    C-183/95 Affish [1997] ECR I-4315.
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-278/97 (1)
(3) Commission Decision 97/513/EC of 30 July 1997 concerning                                    (1999/C 20/47)
    certain protective measures with regard to certain fishery
    products originating in Bangladesh (OJ L 214, 6.8.1997,
    p. 46).
(4) Commission Decision 97/515/EC of 1 August 1997 concerning          By order of 7 October 1998, the President of the Court of
    certain protective measures with regard to certain fishery         Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
    products originating in India (OJ L 214, 6.8.1997, p. 52).         from the register of Case C-278/97 (Reference for a
(5) Commission Decision 97/516/EC of 1 August 1997 concerning          preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof):
    certain protective measures with regard to certain fishery         Wrangler Germany GmbH v. Metro Selbstbedienungs-
    products originating in Madagascar (OJ L 214, 6.8.1997,            Groûhandel GmbH.
    p. 53).
                                                                       (1) OJ C 295, 27.9.1997.


23 . 9 . 95             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 248/ 13
      16 of the EEC Treaty ), the prohibition of discrimination         Kingdom of Spain v. Commission of the European
      ( Article 95 of the EEC Treaty) and other provisions of           Communities .
      Community law to make the exporter bear the full costs
      under national law of regular or occasional analyses ?            (') OJ No C 103 , 11 . 4 . 1994 .
(>) OJ No L 180 , 6 . 7 . 1976 , p . 9 .
(2 ) OJ No L 199 , 7. 8 . 1979 , p . 10 .
( 3 ) OJ No L 199 , 7. 8 . 1979 , p . 1 .                                        Removal from the register of Case C-95/94 ( J )
                                                                                ( 95/C 248/29 )
                                                                        By order of 1 1 July 1995 the President of the Sixth Chamber
                                                                        of the Court of Justice of the European Communities
        Removal from the register of Case C-l 80/94 ( )                 ordered the removal from the register of Case C-95/94 :
                            ( 95/C 248 /26 )                            Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of
                                                                        Spain.
By order of 12 June 1995 the President of the Sixth Chamber
of the Court of Justice of the European Communities                     (') OJ No C 161 , 11 . 6 . 1994 .
ordered the removal from the register of Case C-l 80/94 :
Commission of the European Communities v. Hellenic
Republic .
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-471/93
 (') OJ No C 233 , 20 . 8 . 1994 .                                                              and Case C-47/94 (M
                                                                                ( 95/C 248 /30 )
                                                                        By order of 1 4 July 1995 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                        of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
         Removal from the register of Case C-67/92 (*)                  register of Case C-471 /93 and Case C-47/94 : United
                            ( 95/C 248/27 )                             Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v.
                                                                        Commission of the European Communities, supported by
 By order of 30 June 1995 the President of the Court of                 the Kingdom of Spain, the Italian Republic and the Hellenic
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                 Republic .
 from the register of Case C-67/92 ( reference for a
 preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance                 (') OJ No C 43 , 12 . 2 . 1994 and
 de Rennes): Societe l'Hexagone v. Societe des Auteurs,                        OJ No C 90 , 26 . 3 . 1994 .
 Compositeurs et Editeurs de Musique ( SACEM ).
 O OJ No C 86 , 7. 4 . 1992 .
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-154/94 ( )
                                                                                95/C 248/31
                                                                         By order of 14 July 1995 the President of the Court of Justice
         Removal from the register of Case C-53/94 ( )                   of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                             ( 95/C 248/28 )                             register of Case C-154/94 ( reference for a preliminary
                                                                         ruling from the Sozialgericht Berlin ): Bahar Kockaya v.
  By order of 1 1 July 1 995 the President of the Fifth Chamber          Bundesanstalt fiir Arbeit.
  of the Court of Justice of the European Communities
  ordered the removal from the register of Case C-53/94 :                t 1 ) OJ No C 218 , 6 . 8 . 1994 .


title: Case F-96/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 3 May 2016 — Grzebielec v Commission

text:
               20.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 222/50

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 3 May 2016 — Grzebielec v Commission
   (Case F-96/15) (1)

   (2016/C 222/80)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 294, 7/9/2015, p. 84.


title: Case T-806/14: Judgment of the General Court of 10 May 2016 — August Storck v EUIPO (Representation of a white and blue square-shaped packaging) (EU trade mark — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark representing white and blue square-shaped packaging — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               20.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 222/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 May 2016 — August Storck v EUIPO (Representation of a white and blue square-shaped packaging)
   (Case T-806/14) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark representing white and blue square-shaped packaging - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 222/17)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: August Storck KG (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: P. Goldenbaum, I. Rohr, T. Melchert and A.-C. Richter, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: V. Melgar and H. Kunz, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 September 2014 (Case R 644/2014-5), concerning the international registration designating the European Union of a figurative mark representing white and blue square-shaped packaging.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders August Storck KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 July 2004 in Case C-166/03: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Article 28 EC — Marketing of articles made of precious metals — ‘Gold’ and ‘gold alloy’)

text:
               28.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/6

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 8 July 2004
   in Case C-166/03: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Article 28 EC - Marketing of articles made of precious metals - ‘Gold’ and ‘gold alloy’)
   (2004/C 217/11)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-166/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agent: B. Stromsky) v French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and F. Million ) — application for a declaration that, by reserving the term ‘gold’ for articles of a fineness of 750 parts per thousand, whilst those of a fineness of 375 or 585 parts per thousand are described as ‘gold alloy’, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and N. Colneric, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 July 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by reserving the term ‘gold’ for articles of a fineness of 750 parts per thousand, whilst those of a fineness of 375 or 585 parts per thousand are termed ‘gold alloy’, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC;

               2.

               Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 135 of 7.6.2003.


title: Case T-76/11: Action brought on 2 February 2011 — Spain v Commission

text:
               19.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/27

         Action brought on 2 February 2011 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-76/11)
   2011/C 89/52
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant requests the Court to:

               —

               annul Commission Regulation (EU) No 1004/2010 of 8 November 2010 of operating deductions from certain fishing quotas for 2010 on account of overfishing in the previous year (OJ 2010 L 291, p. 31); and

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant raises four pleas in law in support of its action:

               1.

               First plea in law, based on an error of legal basis, given that the legal basis for the impugned act is Article 105 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 (1), which entered into force on 1 January 2010, whilst the infringements to which the penalties at issue apply were committed in 2009.

               2.

               Second plea in law, based on breach of the principles of legality and legal certainty, since penalty rules are being applied which were not in force at the time the infringements occurred.

               3.

               Third plea in law, based on breach of the principle of non-retroactivity of less favourable penalty provisions, insofar as less favourable rules are being applied to infringements that occurred in 2009.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, based on the fact that it may not be left to the Commission to determine the law applicable by reference to the time it chooses to commence an inquiry into a practice.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy, amending Regulations (EC) No 847/96, (EC) No 2371/2002, (EC) No 811/2004, (EC) No 768/2005, (EC) No 2115/2005, (EC) No 2166/2005, (EC) No 388/2006, (EC) No 509/2007, (EC) No 676/2007, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 1300/2008, (EC) No 1342/2008 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1627/94 and (EC) No 1966/2006 (OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1).


title: Case C-537/13: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — Birutė Šiba v Arūnas Devėnas (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Scope — Consumer contracts — Contract for the provision of legal services concluded between a lawyer and a consumer)

text:
               2.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/6

      Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — Birutė Šiba v Arūnas Devėnas
      (Case C-537/13) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Scope - Consumer contracts - Contract for the provision of legal services concluded between a lawyer and a consumer)
      (2015/C 073/07)
      Language of the case: Lithuanian

         Referring court

      Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Birutė Šiba

         Defendant: Arūnas Devėnas

         Operative part of the judgment

      Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as applying to standard form contracts for legal services, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, concluded by a lawyer with a natural person acting for purposes which are outside his trade, business or profession.

         (1)  OJ C 9, 11.1.2014.


title: Case C-496/04: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 September 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) –J. Slob v Productschap Zuivel (Milk and milk products — Direct sales — Reference quantities — Overruns — Additional levy on milk — Obligation on producers to keep stock accounts — Article 7(1) and (3) of Regulation (EEC) No 536/93 — Supplementary national measures — Competence of the Member States)

text:
               18.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/10

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 September 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) –J. Slob v Productschap Zuivel
   (Case C-496/04) (1)

   (Milk and milk products - Direct sales - Reference quantities - Overruns - Additional levy on milk - Obligation on producers to keep stock accounts - Article 7(1) and (3) of Regulation (EEC) No 536/93 - Supplementary national measures - Competence of the Member States)
   (2006/C 281/16)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: J. Slob

      Defendant: Productschap Zuivel
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven — Interpretation of Article 7(1)(f) and (3) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 536/93 of 9 March 1993 laying down detailed rules on the application of the additional levy on milk and milk products (OJ 1993 L 57, p.12) — Scope of the obligation to keep stock accounts for producers with reference quantities for direct sales — Additional obligations imposed by a Member State — Question not posed by the national court — No reply given by the Court
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The first sentence of Article 7(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 536/93 of 9 March 1993 laying down detailed rules on the application of the additional levy on milk and milk products must be interpreted as conferring discretion on a Member State to lay down rules, in so far as is necessary, imposing on producers of milk established in its territory supplementary obligations to keep records which are more extensive than the obligations under Article 7(1)(f). In exercising that discretion, the Member State must comply with the general principles of Community law.

               2.

               Community law does not preclude legislation which requires milk producers to keep records of the quantity of butter produced and the use that it has been put to, even where the butter has been destroyed or used as feeding stuff, where, in the Member State concerned, it is found to be difficult to monitor effectively, on the basis of the Community requirements alone, the accuracy of statements of direct sales drawn up by producers.

      (1)  OJ C 31, 5.2.2005.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 21 March 2002 in Case C-174/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Kennemer Golf & Country Club v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 13A(1)(m) — Exempt transactions — Services connected with the practice of sport — Non-profit-making organisation)

text:
C 118/12                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           18.5.2002
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      3.    Article 2(1) of Directive 77/388 is to be interpreted as
                                                                                meaning that the annual subscription fees of the members of a
                                                                                sports association such as that concerned in the main proceed-
                            (Fifth Chamber)                                        ings can constitute the consideration for the services provided by
                                                                                the association, even though members who do not use or do not
                                                                                regularly use the association’s facilities must still pay their
                             21 March 2002                                         annual subscription fees.
in Case C-174/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                    (1) OJ C 192 of 8.7.2000.
the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Kennemer Golf &
     Country Club v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (1)
(Sixth VAT Directive — Article 13A(1)(m) — Exempt
transactions — Services connected with the practice of sport
               — Non-profit-making organisation)
                            (2002/C 118/17)                                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                      (Language of the case: Dutch)                                                     (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                19 March 2002
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             in Case C-224/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Italian Republic (1)
In Case C-174/00: Reference to the Court under Article 177                   (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by Hoge Raad der                       Article 6 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 12
Nederlanden (Netherlands) for a preliminary ruling in the                    EC) — Difference in treatment of persons contravening the
proceedings pending before that court between Kennemer                       highway code according to the place of registration of their
Golf & Country Club and Staatssecretaris van Financiën, on                                        vehicle — Proportionality)
the interpretation of Article 13A(1)(m) of the Sixth Council
Directive 77/388/EC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation
of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —                                           (2002/C 118/18)
Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assess-
ment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber),
composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,                                      (Language of the case: Italian)
S. von Bahr and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; F.G. Jacobs,
Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 21 March 2002, in which it has                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
ruled:                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
1.    Article 13A(1)(m) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC
      of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the
      Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system               In Case C-224/00, Commission of the European Communities
      of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment is to be               (Agents: C. O’Reilly and G. Bisogni) v Italian Republic (Agent:
      interpreted as meaning that the categorisation of an organis-          U. Leanza, assisted by O. Fiumara): Application for a declar-
      ation as ‘non-profit-making’ must be based on all the organis-         ation that, by maintaining in force a legislative rule (Article 207
      ation’s activities.                                                    of the Italian highway code) providing for different and
                                                                             disproportionate treatment of offenders according to the place
                                                                             of registration of their vehicle, the Italian Republic has failed
2.    Article 13A(1)(m) of Directive 77/388 is to be interpreted as          to fulfil its obligations under Article 6 of the EC Treaty (now,
      meaning that an organisation may be categorised as ‘non-               after amendment, Article 12 EC), the Court (Sixth Chamber),
      profit-making’ even if it systematically seeks to achieve surpluses    composed of: F. Macken, President of the Chamber, N. Colner-
      which it then uses for the purposes of the provision of its            ic, R. Schintgen, V. Skouris (Rapporteur) and J.N. Cunha
      services. The first part of the optional condition set out in the      Rodrigues, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass,
      first indent of Article 13A(2)(a) of Directive 77/388 is to be         Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 March 2002, in which
      interpreted in the same way.                                           it:


title: Case C-165/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 7 April 2014  — Alfredo Rendón Marín v Administración del Estado

text:
               10.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/31

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 7 April 2014 — Alfredo Rendón Marín v Administración del Estado
   (Case C-165/14)
   2014/C 175/38
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo, Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo, Section: Tercera

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Alfredo Rendón Marín

      Defendant: Administración del Estado

      Question referred

   Is national legislation which excludes the possibility of granting a residence permit to the parent of a European Union citizen who is a child and dependent on that parent, because the parent has a criminal record in the country in which the request is made, compatible with Article 20 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, interpreted in the light of the decisions of 19 October 2004 (Case C-200/02 Zhu-Chen) (1) and 8 March 2011 (Case C-34/09 Ruiz Zambrano), (2) even if this results in the removal of the child from the territory of the European Union, as that child has to follow the parent?

      (1)  EU:C:2004:639.

      (2)  EU:C:2011:124.


title: Case C-458/99: Action brought on 1 December 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
C 47/18                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     19.2.2000
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          The Member States are required by the binding character of
Error in the legal assessment of the facts entailing a breach of          the third paragraph of Article 249 EC and of Article 10 EC (ex
rules of law, in this case Article 7(3) of Annex VII to the Staff         third paragraph of Article 189 and Article 5 of the EC Treaty)
Regulations of Officials and the implementing provisions.                 to adopt the measures needed to transpose directives into
                                                                          national law before the expiry of the period laid down for that
                                                                          purpose and to communicate those measures immediately to
                                                                          the Commission. Those periods expired without the Hellenic
                                                                          Republic having communicated to the Commission the pro-
                                                                          visions transposing the directives at issue into national law.
                                                                          (1) OJ No L 265, 8.11.1995, p. 17.
                                                                          (2) OJ No L 332, 30.12.1995, p. 15.
                                                                          (3) OJ No L 351, 23.12.1997, p. 55.
Action brought on 1 December 1999 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Hellenic Repub-
                                 lic
                                                                          Action brought on 1 December 1999 by the Commission
                          (Case C-457/99)                                 of the European Communities against the Hellenic Repub-
                                                                                lic
                           (2000/C 47/28)                                                         (Case C-458/99)
                                                                                (2000/C 47/29)
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 1 December                An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,                       Court of Justice of the European Communities on 1 December
represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, of its Legal Service,                1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of                represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, of its Legal Service,
Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,            with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
Kirchberg.                                                                Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
                                                                          Kirchberg.
The Commission claims that the Court should:                              The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                          — declare that, by not adopting within the time-limit laid
1. declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and                    down the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
    administrative provisions necessary to comply with:                       necessary to comply with Commission Directive
                                                                              98/19/EC (1) of 18 March 1998 amending Council Direc-
                                                                              tive 70/524/EEC concerning additives in feedingstuffs, the
    — Council Directive 95/53/EC (1) of 25 October 1995                       Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
         fixing the principles governing the organisation of                  the Treaty and that directive;
         official inspections in the field of animal nutrition;
                                                                          — order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
    — Council Directive 95/69/EC (2) of 22 December 1995
         laying down the conditions and arrangements for                  Pleas in law and main arguments
         approving and registering certain establishments and
         intermediaries operating in the animal feed sector               The Member States are required by the binding character of
         and amending Directives 70/524/EEC, 74/63/EEC,                   the third paragraph of Article 249 EC and of Article 10 EC (ex
         79/373/EEC and 82/471/EEC; and                                   third paragraph of Article 189 and Article 5 of the EC Treaty)
                                                                          to adopt the measures needed to transpose directives into
                                                                          national law before the expiry of the period laid down for that
    — Commission Directive 97/72/EC (3) of 15 December                    purpose and to communicate those measures immediately to
         1997 amending Council Directive 70/524/EEC con-                  the Commission. That period expired on 31 May 1998
         cerning additives in feedingstuffs,                              without the Hellenic Republic having communicated to the
                                                                          Commission the provisions transposing the directive at issue
                                                                          into national law.
    the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
    under the Treaty and those directives;
                                                                          (1) OJ No L 96, 28.3.1998, p. 39.
2. order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.


title: Case C-503/17: Action brought on 21 August 2017 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

text:
               16.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/21

         Action brought on 21 August 2017 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-503/17)
   (2017/C 347/28)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: F. Tomat, J. Tomkin, Agents)

      Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by allowing the use of marked fuel for the purpose of fuelling private pleasure craft, the United Kingdom has breached its obligations under Directive 95/60/EC (1);

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission considers that permitting the sale of marked fuel for propelling private pleasure craft is fundamentally incompatible with the Directive 95/60/EC (the ‘Fiscal Marking Directive’). The obligation to mark fuel that has been subject to a reduced rate of excise duty is intended specifically to ensure that those fuels are readily distinguishable from fuel in respect of which full duty has been paid. However, the effect of the national measure is that where marked fuel is found in a tank of a private pleasure craft that has been refuelled in the United Kingdom, it is not possible to determine by reference to the marking, whether or not the fuel used was subject to a full or discounted rate of excise duty.

      (1)  Council Directive 95/60/EC of 27 November 1995 on fiscal marking of gas oils and kerosene (OJ 1995, L 291, p. 46).


title: Case T-372/06: Action brought on 11 December 2006 — Bomba Energia Getränke v OHIM — Eckes-Granini (Bomba)

text:
               24.2.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/25

         Action brought on 11 December 2006 — Bomba Energia Getränke v OHIM — Eckes-Granini (Bomba)
   (Case T-372/06)
   (2007/C 42/44)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Bomba Energia Getränke Vertriebs GmbH (Wiener Neudorf, Austria) (represented by: A. Kockläuner, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Eckes-Granini GmbH & Co. KG (Nieder-Olm, Germany)
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul in its entirety the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 October 2006 in Appeal Case R 184/2005-2;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Bomba’ for goods in Classes 32 and 33 (Application No 558 874).

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Eckes-Granini GmbH & Co. KG.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Various word and figurative marks ‘la bamba’, including the German word mark ‘la bamba’ for goods in Classes 29, 32 and 33.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the application.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: The contested decision infringes Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), in as much as there is no likelihood of confusion between the opposing marks.

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


title: Case C-431/15: Order of the President of the Court of 24 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Cantabria — Spain) — Liberbank, SA v Rafael Piris del Campo

text:
               24.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/12

         Order of the President of the Court of 24 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Cantabria — Spain) — Liberbank, SA v Rafael Piris del Campo
   (Case C-431/15) (1)

   (2017/C 129/14)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 354, 26.10.2015.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 6 May 2003 in Case T-57/02: Makhteshim Agan Holding BV v European Parliament and Council of the European Union (Decision No 2455/2001/EC — Action for annulment — Inadmissibility)

text:
2.8.2003               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 184/35
        ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                Maldegem and C. Mereu, lawyers, v European Parliament
                                                                            (Agents, C. Pennera and M. Moore) and Council of the
                           of 6 May 2003                                    European Union (Agents: M. Sims-Robertson and B. Hoff-
                                                                            Nielsen), supported by Commission of the European Commu-
                                                                            nities (Agents: G. Valero Jordana and K. Fitch): Application for
in Case T-46/02: Finchimica SpA and I.PI.CI — Industria
                                                                            partial annulment of Decision No 2455/2001/EC of the
Prodotti Chimici SpA v European Parliament and Council
                                                                            European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November
                     of the European Union (1)
                                                                            2001 establishing the list of priority substances in the field of
                                                                            water policy and amending Directive 2000/60/EC (OJ 2001
(Decision No 2455/2001/EC — Action for annulment —                          L 331, p. 1), the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),
                           Inadmissibility)                                 composed of: K. Lenaerts, President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger,
                                                                            Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 6 May 2003,
                          (2003/C 184/78)                                   the operative part of which is as follows:
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                            1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
In Case T-46/02, Finchimica SpA, established in Manerbio                    2.    The applicant shall bear its own costs and pay the costs
(Italy), I.PI.CI — Industria Prodotti Chimici SpA, established in                 incurred by the Parliament and the Council.
Novate Milanese (Italy), represented by K. Van Maldegem and
C. Mereu, lawyers, v European Parliament (Agents: C. Pennera
and M. Moore) and Council of the European Union (Agents:                    3.    The Commission shall bear its own costs.
M. Sims-Robertson and B. Hoff-Nielsen), supported by
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Valero
Jordana and K. Fitch): Application for partial annulment of                 (1) OJ C 144 of 15.06.2002.
Decision No 2455/2001/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 20 November 2001 establishing the list of
priority substances in the field of water policy and amending
Directive 2000/60/EC (OJ 2001 L 331, p. 1), the Court of First
Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts, President,
J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an
order on , the operative part of which is as follows:
1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
2.    The applicants shall bear their own costs and pay the costs
      incurred by the Parliament and the Council.
3.    The Commission shall bear its own costs.                                                         of 6 May 2003
(1) OJ C 144 of 15.06.2002.                                                 in Case T-70/02: Griffin (Europe) Headquaters NV v
                                                                            European Parliament and Council of the European
                                                                                Union (1)
                                                                            (Decision No 2455/2001/EC — Action for annulment —
                                                                                Inadmissibility)
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                           of 6 May 2003                                                              (2003/C 184/80)
in Case T-57/02: Makhteshim Agan Holding BV v
European Parliament and Council of the European                                                 (Language of the case: English)
                              Union (1)
(Decision No 2455/2001/EC — Action for annulment —
                           Inadmissibility)                                 In Case T-70/02, Griffin (Europe) Headquarters NV, established
                                                                            in Zaventem (Belgium), represented by K. Van Maldegem and
                          (2003/C 184/79)                                   C. Mereu, lawyers, v European Parliament (Agents: C. Pennera
                                                                            and M. Moore) and Council of the European Union (Agents:
                                                                            M. Sims-Robertson and B. Hoff-Nielsen), supported by
                    (Language of the case: English)                         Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Valero
                                                                            Jordana and K. Fitch): Application for partial annulment of
                                                                            Decision No 2455/2001/EC of the European Parliament and of
In Case T-57/02, Makhteshim Agan Holding BV, established in                 the Council of 20 November 2001 establishing the list of
Amsterdam (Netherlands), represented by P. Logelain, K. Van                 priority substances in the field of water policy and amending


title: Case C-196/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München by order of that court of 17 April 2005 in Sachsenmilch AG v Oberfinanzdirektion Nürnberg

text:
               23.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/25

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München by order of that court of 17 April 2005 in Sachsenmilch AG v Oberfinanzdirektion Nürnberg
   (Case C-196/05)
   (2005/C 182/47)
   Language of the case: German
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht München (Finance Court, Munich) (Germany) of 17 April 2005, received at the Court Registry on 4 May 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Sachsenmilch AG and Oberfinanzdirektion Nürnberg on the following questions:

               (1)

               Is the Combined Nomenclature (CN) in the version of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1789/2003 (1) of 11 September 2003 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (2) on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and the Common Customs Tariff (CCT) to be interpreted as meaning that pizza cheese (mozzarella) that was stored after its manufacture for one to two weeks at 2 to 4° C is to be classified under subheading 0406 10 CN?

               (2)

               In the absence of Community rules, may the examination of whether cheese is fresh cheese within the meaning of subheading 0406 10 CN be carried out on the basis of organoleptic features?

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 281, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1.


title: Case C-394/12: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Asylgerichtshof — Austria) — Shamso Abdullahi v Bundesasylamt (Request for a preliminary ruling — Common European Asylum System — Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 — Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application — Review of compliance with the criteria for determining responsibility for examining the asylum application — Scope of judicial review)

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/12

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Asylgerichtshof — Austria) — Shamso Abdullahi v Bundesasylamt
   (Case C-394/12) (1)

   (Request for a preliminary ruling - Common European Asylum System - Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 - Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application - Review of compliance with the criteria for determining responsibility for examining the asylum application - Scope of judicial review)
   2014/C 45/20
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Asylgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Shamso Abdullahi

      Defendant: Bundesasylamt

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Asylgerichtshof — Interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national (OJ 2003 L 50, p. 1) and, in particular, Articles 10, 16, 18 and 19 thereof, and of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1560/2003 of 2 September 2003 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 (OJ 2003 L 222, p. 3) — Somali national having crossed the frontier of the European Union in Greece from where she then went, via third countries and Hungary, to Austria, where she submitted, less than 12 months after her first entry on European Union territory, an application for asylum — Determination of the Member State responsible for examining that asylum application

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 19(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances where a Member State has agreed to take charge of an applicant for asylum on the basis of the criterion laid down in Article 10(1) of that regulation — namely, as the Member State of the first entry of the applicant for asylum into the European Union — the only way in which the applicant for asylum can call into question the choice of that criterion is by pleading systemic deficiencies in the asylum procedure and in the conditions for the reception of applicants for asylum in that Member State, which provide substantial grounds for believing that the applicant for asylum would face a real risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

      (1)  OJ C 343, 10.11.2012.