title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 November 2000 in Case T-5/97: Industrie des Poudres Sphériques v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Action for annulment — Rejection of a complaint — Article 86 of the EC Treaty (now Article 82 EC) — Misuse of the anti-dumping procedure — Statement of reasons — Rights of the defence)

text:
5.5.2001                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 134/15
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 2.    Declares that the period in respect of which the applicant must
                                                                                be compensated for the losses sustained as a result of the
                                                                                application of Regulation No 857/84 is that beginning on
                        of 31 January 2001                                       11 December 1988 and ending on the date of delivery of this
                                                                                judgment. That amount must include the purchase price of a
                                                                                reference quantity equivalent to the one the applicant should
in Case T-76/94: Rendert Jansma v Council of the Euro-                           have obtained pursuant to Regulation No 857/84;
pean Union and Commission of the European Communi-
                               ties (1)                                    3.    Orders the parties to forward to the Court, within six months
                                                                                of this judgment, particulars of the amounts to be paid,
                                                                                established by mutual agreement;
(Action for damages — Non-contractual liability — Milk —
Additional levy — Reference quantity — Producer having                     4.    Orders the parties, in the absence of an agreement, to submit
entered into a non-marketing undertaking — Sale of the                           to the Court within the same period their quantified claims;
             SLOM holding — Limitation period)
                                                                           5.    Reserves the costs.
                          (2001/C 134/31)
                                                                           (1) OJ C 90 of 26.3.94.
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
In Case T-76/94: Rendert Jansma, residing in Engelbert (Nether-
lands), represented by E.H. Pijnacker Hordijk and H.J. Bronk-
horst, of the Amsterdam Bar, with an address for service in                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Frieden, 62 Avenue
Guillaume, against Council of the European Union (Agent:                                         of 30 November 2000
A.-M. Colaert) and Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: T. van Rijn and H.-J. Rabe) — application for
compensation under Article 178 and the second paragraph of                 in Case T-5/97: Industrie des Poudres Sphériques v
Article 215 of the EC Treaty (now Article 235 EC and the                           Commission of the European Communities (1)
second paragraph of Article 288 EC) for damage suffered by
the applicant as a result of his having been prevented                     (Competition — Action for annulment — Rejection of a
from marketing milk by virtue of Council Regulation (EEC)                  complaint — Article 86 of the EC Treaty (now Article 82
No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the                  EC) — Misuse of the anti-dumping procedure — Statement
application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation                           of reasons — Rights of the defence)
(EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector (OJ
1984 L 90, p. 13), as supplemented by Commission Regulation                                          (2001/C 134/32)
(EEC) No 1371/84 of 16 May 1984 laying down detailed rules
for the application of the additional levy referred to in
Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 (OJ 1984 L 132,                                       (Language of the case: French)
p. 11) — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),
composed of: V. Tiili, President, R.M. Moura Ramos and                     In Case T-5/97: Industrie des Poudres Sphériques,established
P. Mengozzi, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for              in Annemasse (France), represented by C. Momège, of the Paris
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 31 January 2001, in                 Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
which it:                                                                  Chambers of A. May, 398 Route d’Esch, against Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities (Agents: F. Mascardi and
1.   Declares that the defendants are bound to make good the               A. Carnelutti ) supported by Péchiney Électrométallurgie,
     damage sustained by the applicant as a result of the application      established in Courbevoie (France), represented by J.-P. Gunther
     of Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984                and O. Prost, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in
     adopting general rules for the application of the levy referred to    Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch and Wolter, 11 Rue
     in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk               Goethe — application for annulment of the Commission
     and milk products sector, as supplemented by Commission               decision of 7 November 1996, rejecting the applicant’s request
     Regulation (EEC) No 1371/84 of 16 May 1984 laying down                for a finding that an infringement of Article 86 of the EC
     detailed rules for the application of the additional levy referred    Treaty (now Article 82 EC) had allegedly been committed by
     to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68, in so far as          Péchiney Electrométallurgie (Case No IV/35.151./E-I IPS/Péchi-
     those regulations did not make provision for the allocation of a      ney Électrométallurgie) — the Court of First Instance (Fifth
     reference quantity to producers who, pursuant to an undertaking       Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of: R. Garcı́a-
     given under Council Regulation (EEC) No 1078/77 of 17 May             Valdecasas, President, P. Lindh, J.D. Cooke, M. Vilaras and
     1977 introducing a system of premiums for the non-marketing           N. Forwood, Judges; G. Herzig, Administrator, for the Registrar,
     of milk and milk products and for the conversion of dairy herds,      has given a judgment on 30 November 2000, in which it:
     did not deliver milk during the reference year opted for by the
     Member State concerned;                                               1.    Dismisses the application;
 ---pagebreak--- C 134/16                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        5.5.2001
2.     Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and pay those of the         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
       Commission and of the intervener Péchiney Électrométallurgie.
                                                                                of 31 January 2001
( 1) OJ C 74 of 8.3.97.
                                                                           in Joined Cases T-197/97 and T-198/97: Weyl Beef Prod-
                                                                           ucts BV and Others v Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities (1)
                                                                           (Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) —
                                                                           Action for annulment — Rejection of a complaint —
                                                                           Community interest — Relationship between Article 85 and
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               Article 92 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
                                                                                Article 87 EC))
                        of 31 January 2001
                                                                                (2001/C 134/34)
in Case T-143/97: Gerhardus van den Berg v Council of
the European Union and Commission of the European
                          Communities (1)                                                      (Language of the case: Dutch)
(Action for damages — Non-contractual liability — Milk —                   In Joined Cases T-197/99 and T-198/97: Weyl Beef Products
Additional levy — Reference quantity — Producer having                     BV, established at Enschede, Netherlands, represented by
entered into a non-marketing undertaking — Transfer of                     E.H. Pijnacker Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar, and S.B. Noë,
                   the quota to another holding)                           of the Rotterdam Bar, applicant in Case T-197/97, Exportslach-
                                                                           terij Chris Hogeslag BV, established at Holten, Netherlands,
                          (2001/C 134/33)                                  represented by A.P.J.M. de Bruyn, of the Zutphen Bar, Gronin-
                                                                           ger Vleeshandel BV, established at Groningen, Netherlands, in
                                                                           liquidation, represented by J.J. van der Molen, liquidator
                                                                           appointed by the courts, represented initially by A.P.J.M. de
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                           Bruyn, of the Zutphen Bar, and subsequently by P.E. Mazel, of
                                                                           the Leeuwarden Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
In Case T-143/97: Gerhardus van den Berg, residing in Dalfsen              at the Chambers of Bonn and Schmitt, 7 Val Sainte-Croix,
(Netherlands), represented by E.H. Pijnacker Hordijk, of the               applicants in Case T-198/97, against Commission of the
Amsterdam Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                European Communities (Agents: W. Wils and G. van der Wal)
the Chambers of L. Frieden, 62 Avenue Guillaume, v Council                 supported by Produktschap voor Vee en Vlees and Stichting
of the European Union (Agents: A.-M. Colaert and J.-P. Hix)                Saneringsfonds Runderslachterijen, both established at
and Commission of the European Communities (Agent: T. van                  Rijswijk, Netherlands, represented by I.W. VerLoren van
Rijn) — application for compensation under Article 178 and                 Themaat, of the Amsterdam Bar, with an address for service in
the second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty (now                  Luxembourg at the Chambers of C. Medernach, 8-10 Rue
Article 235 EC and the second paragraph of Article 288 EC)                 Mathias Hardt — application in Case T-197/97, for annulment
for damage suffered by the applicant as a result of his having             of the Commission’s decision of 23 April 1997 (case
been prevented from marketing milk by virtue of Council                    No IV/35.591/F-3 — Weyl/PVV+SSR) rejecting an application
Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting                       made by the applicant on 14 June 1995 and, in Case
general rules for the application of the levy referred to in               T-198/97, for annulment of the Commission’s decision of
Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk              23 April 1997 (case No IV/35.634/F-3 — Hogeslag-Gronin-
products sector (OJ 1984 L 90, p. 13), as supplemented by                  ger/PVV+SSR) rejecting an application made by the applicants
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1371/84 of 16 May 1984                      on 30 June 1995 — the Court of First Instance (Fourth
laying down detailed rules for the application of the additional           Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili, President, R.M. Moura Ramos
levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68               and P. Mengozzi, Judges; G. Herzig, Administrator, for the
(OJ 1984 L 132, p. 11) — the Court of First Instance (Fourth               Registrar, has given a judgment on 31 January 2001, in which
Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili, President, R.M. Moura Ramos               it:
and P. Mengozzi, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 31 January 2001,                1.    Dismisses the actions;
in which it:
                                                                           2.    Orders the applicants to bear their own costs as well as those
1.     Dismisses the application as inadmissible;                                incurred by the Commission;
2.     Orders the applicant to pay the costs.                              3.    Orders the interveners to bear their own costs.
(1) OJ C 199 of 28.6.1997.                                                 (1) OJ C 252 of 16.8.97.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) 16 May 2002 in Case C-372/01: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to transpose Directive 98/8/EC)

text:
C 169/12                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          13.7.2002
declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and             Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to
adminstrative provisions necessary to comply with Com-                      fulfil its obligations under that directive, the Court (First
mission Directive 98/101/EC of 22 December 1998 adapting                    Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber,
to technical progress Council Directive 91/157/EEC on batter-               M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), and A. Rosas, Judges; F.G. Jacobs,
ies and accumulators containing certain dangerous substances                Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
(OJ 1999 L 1, p. 1) or, in any event, by failing to inform the              on 16 May 2002, in which it:
Commission thereof, Italy has failed to fulfil its obligations
under that directive, the Court (Third Chamber), composed of:
F. Macken, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur)                1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,
and J.-P. Puissochet, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate                    the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary in
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 May                      order to comply with Directive 98/8/EC of the European
2002, in which it:                                                                Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning
                                                                                the placing of biocidal products on the market, the Grand
                                                                                Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
                                                                                that directive.
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission
      Directive 98/101/EC of 22 December 1998 adapting to
      technical progress Council Directive 91/157/EEC on batteries          2.    Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
      and accumulators containing certain dangerous substances, the
      Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      Directive 98/101;
                                                                            (1) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.
2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                               (First Chamber)
                           (First Chamber)                                                              30 May 2002
                             16 May 2002                                    in Case C-376/01: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Ireland (1)
in Case C-372/01: Commission of the European Communi-
             ties v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)                           (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
                                                                                to transpose Directive 98/8/EC)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
                 to transpose Directive 98/8/EC)
                                                                                (2002/C 169/21)
                           (2002/C 169/20)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                     (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      In Case C-376/01, Commission of the European Communities
                    in the European Court Reports)                          (Agent: R. Wainwright) v Ireland (Agent: D. J. O’Hagan):
                                                                            Application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt, by
                                                                            14 May 2000, the laws, regulations and administrative pro-
                                                                            visions necessary to comply with Directive 98/8/EC of the
In Case C-372/01, Commission of the European Communities                    European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998
(Agent: M. Nolin) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent:                       concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market
J. Faltz): Application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt          (OJ 1998 L 123, p. 1), or in any event by failing to inform the
the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary               Commission thereof, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations
to comply with Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament                 under that directive, the Court (First Chamber), composed of:
and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the                       P. Jann, President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur)
placing of biocidal products on the market (OJ 1998 L 123,                  and A. Rosas, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass,
p. 1) and, in any event, by failing to communicate them to the              Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 May 2002, in which it:


title: Case C-48/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 February 2015  — European Parliament v Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — Directive 2013/51/Euratom — Choice of legal basis — EAEC Treaty — Articles 31 EA and 32 EA — FEU Treaty — Article 192(1) TFEU — Protecting human health — Radioactive substances in water intended for human consumption — Legal certainty — Sincere cooperation among the institutions)

text:
               13.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/11

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 February 2015 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-48/14) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Directive 2013/51/Euratom - Choice of legal basis - EAEC Treaty - Articles 31 EA and 32 EA - FEU Treaty - Article 192(1) TFEU - Protecting human health - Radioactive substances in water intended for human consumption - Legal certainty - Sincere cooperation among the institutions))
   (2015/C 118/14)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: L. Visaggio and J. Rodrigues, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: O. Segnana and R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek and E. Ruffer, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and D. Colas and by N. Rouam, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: P. Van Nuffel and M. Patakia, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs;

               3)

               Orders the Czech Republic, the French Republic and the Commission to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 102, 7.4.2014.


title: Case C-108/16 PPU: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against Pawel Dworzecki (Request for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — European arrest warrant — Article 4a(1) — Surrender procedures between Member States — Conditions of execution — Reasons for optional non-execution — Exceptions — Mandatory execution — Sentence handed down in absentia — Concepts of ‘summons in person’ and ‘official notification by other means — Autonomous concepts of EU law)

text:
               18.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/13

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against Pawel Dworzecki
   (Case C-108/16 PPU) (1)

   ((Request for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - European arrest warrant - Article 4a(1) - Surrender procedures between Member States - Conditions of execution - Reasons for optional non-execution - Exceptions - Mandatory execution - Sentence handed down in absentia - Concepts of ‘summons in person’ and ‘official notification by other means - Autonomous concepts of EU law))
   (2016/C 260/16)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank Amsterdam

      Party to the main proceedings

   Pawel Dworzecki

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               1.Article 4a(1)(a)(i) of Council Framework Directive 2002/584/JHA of 13 February 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that the expressions ‘summoned in person’ and ‘by other means actually received official information of the scheduled date and place of that trial in such a manner that it was unequivocally established that he or she was aware of the scheduled trial’ in that provision constitute autonomous concepts of EU law and must be interpreted uniformly throughout the European Union.

               2.

               2.Article 4a(1)(a)(i) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, must be interpreted as meaning that a summons, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which was not served directly on the person concerned but was handed over, at the latter’s address, to an adult belonging to that household who undertook to pass it on to him, when it cannot be ascertained from the European arrest warrant whether and, if so, when that adult actually passed that summons on to the person concerned, does not in itself satisfy the conditions set out in that provision.

      (1)  OJ C 156, 2.5.2016.


title: Case C-357/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 30 August 2006 — Frigerio Luigi & C. S.n.c. v Comune di Triuggio

text:
               18.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/22

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 30 August 2006 — Frigerio Luigi & C. S.n.c. v Comune di Triuggio
   (Case C-357/06)
   (2006/C 281/36)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   The Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Frigerio Luigi & C. S.n.c.

      Defendant: Comune di Triuggio
   Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 4(1) of Directive 2004/18/EC (1), or the analogous Article 26(2) of Directive 92/50/EEC (2) (in the event that the latter is regarded as the legislative point of reference), according to which candidates and tenderers who, on the basis of the legislation of the Member State in which they are established, are authorised to provide the service at issue may not be rejected solely because, under the provisions in force in the Member State in which the contract is to be awarded, they would be required to be natural persons or legal persons, lay down a fundamental principle of Community law such as to override the formal limitation laid down by Article 113(5) of Legislative Decree No 267/2000 and by Articles 2(6) and 15(1) of Regional Lombardy Law No 26 of 12 December 2003, and is it therefore capable of compelling compliance in such a way as to allow persons not having the status of joint stock companies to participate in tendering procedures?

               2.

               In the event that the Court does not consider the above rules to be the expression of a fundamental principle of Community law, does Article 4(1) of Directive 2004/18/EC or the analogous Article 26(2) of Directive 92/50 (in the event that the latter is regarded as the legislative point of reference) constitute, rather, an implicit corollary or a ‘derivative principle’ of the principle of competition, viewed in conjunction with those concerning administrative transparency and non-discrimination on grounds of nationality, and does it therefore, as such, have immediate binding effect and take precedence over any possibly conflicting domestic provisions laid down by Member States to govern public works contracts falling outside the scope of the direct applicability of Community law?

               3.

               Are Article 113(5) of Legislative Decree No 267/2000 and Articles 2(6) and 15(1) of the Regional Lombardy Law of 12 December 2003 compatible with the Community principles set out in Article 39 (free movement of workers within the Community), Article 43 (freedom of establishment), Articles 48 and 81 (agreements restricting competition) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, and therefore, in the event of a conflict being identified, must the abovementioned national provisions be disapplied as conflicting with Community provisions that have direct binding effect and take precedence over domestic provisions?

               4.

               Are Article 113(5) of Legislative Decree No 267/2000 and Articles 2(6) and 15(1) of the Regional Lombardy Law of 12 December 2003 compatible with Article 9(1) of Directive 75/442/EEC or the analogous Article 7(2) of Directive 2006/12/EC of 5 April 2006 (in the event that the latter is regarded as the legislative point of reference), which provide, respectively, that ‘any establishment or undertaking which carries out the operations specified in Annex II A must obtain a permit from the competent authority referred to in Article 6.’ and ‘[t]he plans referred to in paragraph 1 may, for example, cover: (a) the natural or legal persons empowered to carry out waste management’?

      (1)  OJ L 134, p. 114.

      (2)  OJ L 209, p. 1.


title: Case C-150/09 P: Order of the Court of 21 January 2010 — Iride SpA, Iride Energia SpA v European Commission (Appeal — State aid — Aid declared compatible with the common market on condition that its recipient repays earlier aid declared unlawful — Compatibility with Article 87(1) EC — Errors of law — Distortion of the appellants’ arguments — Failure to state grounds — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
               22.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/14

         Order of the Court of 21 January 2010 — Iride SpA, Iride Energia SpA v European Commission
   (Case C-150/09 P) (1)

   (Appeal - State aid - Aid declared compatible with the common market on condition that its recipient repays earlier aid declared unlawful - Compatibility with Article 87(1) EC - Errors of law - Distortion of the appellants’ arguments - Failure to state grounds - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
   2010/C 134/21
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellants: Iride SpA, Iride Energia SpA (represented by: L. Radicati di Brozolo, M. Merola and T. Ubaldi, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: E. Righini and G. Conte, Agents)

      Re:

   APPEAL against the judgment of 11 February 2009 in Case T-25/07 Iride SpA and Iride Energia SpA, by which the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) dismissed an application for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/941/EC of 8 November 2006 concerning State aid C 11/06 (ex N 127/05) which Italy is planning to implement for AEM Torino (OJ 2006 L 366, p. 62) in the form of subsidies intended to reimburse ‘stranded’ costs incurred in the energy sector, in so far as, first, the conclusion of that decision is that the aid constitutes State aid and/or, secondly, that decision makes payment of the aid subject to the condition that AEM Torino reimburse unlawful aid previously granted under the regime for undertakings known as ‘municipalizzate’ (local administrative bodies)

      Operative part of the order

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Iride SpA and Iride Energia SpA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 153, 04.07.2009.


title: Case T-253/02: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 July 2006 — Chafiq Ayadi v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban — Competence of the Community — Freezing of funds — Fundamental rights — Jus cogens — Review by the Court — Action for annulment)

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/34

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 July 2006 — Chafiq Ayadi v Council
   (Case T-253/02) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban - Competence of the Community - Freezing of funds - Fundamental rights - Jus cogens - Review by the Court - Action for annulment)
   (2006/C 224/73)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Chafiq Ayadi (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: initially by A. Lyon, H. Miller and M. Willis-Stewart, Solicitors, and S. Cox, Barrister, and subsequently by A. Lyon, H. Miller and S. Cox)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Vitsentzatos and M. Bishop, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented: initially by J. Collins, and subsequently by R. Caudwell, Agents, and by S. Moore, Barrister) and Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Brown and M. Wilderspin, Agents)
   Re:
   The partial annulment of Council Regulation No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan (OJ 2002 L 139, p. 9)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to bear, in addition to his own costs, those of the Council;

               3.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Commission to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 289, 23.11.2002.


title: Case T-227/09: Action brought on 10 June 2009 — Feng Shen Technology v OHIM — Majtczak (FS)

text:
               15.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/24

         Action brought on 10 June 2009 — Feng Shen Technology v OHIM — Majtczak (FS)
   (Case T-227/09)
   2009/C 193/40
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Feng Shen Technology Co. Ltd (Gueishan, Taiwan) (represented by: W. Festl-Wietek and P. Rath, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Jarosław Majtczak (Łódź, Poland)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 April 2009 in case R 529/2008-4;

               —

               Declare Community trade mark No 4 431 391 invalid; and

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings before the Court and the Board of Appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The mark “FS” for goods in class 26 — Community trade mark No 4 431 391

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

      Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity: Several earlier trade mark registrations for the figurative sign “FS” in Taiwan, China and Ghana in relation to zippers and related products

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the request for a declaration of invalidity

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 51(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94 (which became Article 52(1)(b) of Council Regulation 207/2009), as the Board of Appeal failed to properly evaluate the evidence and documents provided by the parties and failed to properly analyse the facts as a precondition for a finding that the trade mark application concerned was made in bad faith


title: Case C-509/04: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of  18 May 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)) — Magpar VI BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Indirect taxes on the raising of capital — Directive 69/335/EEC — Article 7(1)(b) and (bb) — Capital duty — Exemption — Requirements — Retention for a period of five years of shares acquired)

text:
               15.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/9

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 May 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)) — Magpar VI BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-509/04) (1)

   (Indirect taxes on the raising of capital - Directive 69/335/EEC - Article 7(1)(b) and (bb) - Capital duty - Exemption - Requirements - Retention for a period of five years of shares acquired)
   (2006/C 165/15)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Magpar VI BV

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Article 7(1)(bb) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ English Special Edition 1969 (II), p.412), inserted by Council Directive 73/79/EEC of 9 April 1973 varying the field of application of the reduced rate of capital duty provided for in respect of certain company reconstruction operations by Article 7(1)(b) of the Directive concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital — Shares in a company which are no longer retained by another company following a merger — Five-year period — Disposal of shares
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Article 7(1)(b) and (bb) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Council Directive 73/79/EEC of 9 April 1973 and by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985, must be interpreted as meaning that, where a first capital company, within five years after the acquisition of shares in a second capital company in the course of a share merger that is exempt from capital duty, ceases to hold those shares because the second company has itself merged with a third capital company and has, as a result, ceased to exist, the first company having acquired shares in the third company by way of consideration, the requirement to retain for a period of five years the shares initially acquired, laid down by subparagraph (bb) of the provision in question, is not transferred to the shares the first company holds in the third company.

               2.

               The fact that the second sentence of the second sub-subparagraph of Article 7(1)(bb) of Directive 69/335, as amended by Directives 73/79 and 85/303, refers to a ‘transfer’ of shares held as a result of a transaction that is exempt from capital duty is not relevant to the first question.

      (1)  OJ C 31, 05.02.2005.


title: Case C-270/12: Action brought on 1 June 2012 — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Council of the European Union, European Parliament

text:
               8.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 273/3

         Action brought on 1 June 2012 — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Council of the European Union, European Parliament
   (Case C-270/12)
   2012/C 273/03
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: A. Robinson, Agent, J. Stratford QC, A. Henshaw, Barrister)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union, European Parliament

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Article 28 of Regulation (EU) 236/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2012 on short-selling and certain aspects of credit default swaps (1).

               —

               order the Defendants to pay the costs of the application.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Article 28, headed ‘ESMA intervention powers in exceptional circumstances’, requires the European Securities and Markets Authority (‘ESMA’) to prohibit or impose conditions on the entry by natural or legal persons into short sales or similar transactions, or to require such persons to notify or publicise such positions.
   ESMA shall take such measures if a) they address a threat to the orderly functioning and integrity of the financial markets, or to the stability of the whole or part of the financial system in the Union; b) there are cross-border implications; and c) competent authorities have not taken any measures to address the threat or the measures they have taken do not adequately address the threat. The measures are valid for up to three months, but ESMA is empowered to renew them indefinitely. The measures prevail over any previous measures taken by a competent authority pursuant to the Short Selling Regulation.
   The United Kingdom submits that Article 28 is unlawful on the following grounds.
   Firstly, it is contrary to the second principle established by the Court of Justice in Case 9/56 Meroni v High Authority [1957 & 1958] ECR 133, because:

               1.

               The criteria as to when ESMA is required to take action under Article 28 entail a large measure of discretion.

               2.

               ESMA is given a wide range of choices as to what measure or measures to impose, and what exceptions to specify, and these choices have very significant economic policy implications.

               3.

               The factors which ESMA must take into account contain tests which are highly subjective.

               4.

               ESMA is empowered to renew its measures without any limit on their overall duration.

               5.

               Even if (contrary to the United Kingdom's submissions) Article 28 did not involve ESMA in making macroeconomic policy choices, ESMA nonetheless has a broad discretion as regards the application of policy to any particular case, as in Meroni itself.

         Secondly, Article 28 purports to empower ESMA to impose measures of general application which have the force of law, contrary to the Court's decision in Case 98/80 Giuseppe Romano v Institut national d'assurance maladie-invalidité [1981] ECR 1241.
   Thirdly, Article 28 purports to confer on ESMA a power to adopt non-legislative acts of general application, whereas in the light of Articles 290 and 291 TFEU, the Council has no authority under the Treaties to delegate such a power to a mere agency outside of these provisions.
   Fourthly, if and to the extent that Article 28 were interpreted as empowering ESMA to take individual measures directed at natural or legal persons, it would be ultra vires Article 114 TFEU.
   Article 28 can be severed from the remainder of the Short Selling Regulation. Its removal would leave essentially intact the remainder of the Regulation.

      (1)  OJ L 86, p. 1


title: Case T-76/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 13 September 2005 — Scotto v Commission

text:
               12.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/34

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 13 September 2005 — Scotto v Commission
   (Case T-76/05) (1)

   (2005/C 281/62)

      Language of the case: Italian

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

      (1)  OJ C 93, 16.4.2005.


title: Case C-76/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Brașov (Romania) lodged on 12 February 2014  — Mihai Manea v Instituția Prefectului — județul Brașov — Serviciul public comunitar regim permise de conducere și înmatriculare a vehiculelor

text:
               19.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Brașov (Romania) lodged on 12 February 2014 — Mihai Manea v Instituția Prefectului — județul Brașov — Serviciul public comunitar regim permise de conducere și înmatriculare a vehiculelor
   (Case C-76/14)
   2014/C 151/12
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Brașov

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Mihai Manea

      Defendant: Instituția Prefectului — județul Brașov — Serviciul public comunitar regim permise de conducere și înmatriculare a vehiculelor

      Questions referred

               1.

               Having regard to the provisions of Law No 9/2012 and to the purpose of the tax provided for under that law, must Article 110 TFEU be interpreted as precluding a Member State of the European Union from establishing a tax on pollutant emissions applicable to all foreign motor vehicles upon their registration in that Member State, but to national motor-vehicles upon the transfer of ownership of such vehicles, except where such a tax or a similar tax has already been paid?

               2.

               Having regard to the provisions of Law No 9/2012 and to the purpose of the tax provided for under that law, must Article 110 TFEU be interpreted as precluding a Member State of the European Union from establishing a tax on pollutant emissions which is applicable, in the case of all foreign motor vehicles, upon their registration in that Member State, but which, in the case of national motor vehicles, is due 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 national vehicle can be used for an unlimited time without the tax being paid, until the ownership of that vehicle is transferred, if such a transfer takes place?


title: Case C-158/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep lodged on 22 March 2007 — Jacqueline Förster v IB-Groep

text:
               26.5.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 117/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep lodged on 22 March 2007 — Jacqueline Förster v IB-Groep
   (Case C-158/07)
   (2007/C 117/29)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Centrale Raad van Beroep
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Jacqueline Förster

      Defendant: IB-Groep
   Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1251/70 (1) also apply to students who came to the Netherlands principally to study and initially worked as employed persons on a limited scale while continuing to study, but have meanwhile ceased to work?

               2.

               Does Directive 93/96 (2) preclude students as referred to in Question 1 from successfully relying on Article 12 EC to claim full study finance?

               3.

                           (a)

                           Does the rule that citizens of the Union who are not economically active can rely on Article 12 EC only if they have resided lawfully in the host Member State for a certain period or are in possession of a residence permit also apply to assistance to cover the maintenance costs of students?

                           (b)

                           If so, is it permissible to impose during that period a residence duration requirement only on nationals of Member States other than the host Member State?

                           (c)

                           If so, is the application of a five-year residence duration requirement consistent with Article 12 EC?

                           (d)

                           If not, what residence duration may be required?

               4.

               Should a shorter period of lawful residence be required in individual cases if factors other than the duration of residence indicate a substantial degree of integration into the society of the host Member State?

               5.

               If, as is evident from a judgment of the Court of Justice with retroactive effect, persons are able to derive from Article 12 EC more rights than was previously assumed, may justified requirements connected therewith be imposed in respect of periods in the past if those requirements were published shortly after the publication of the judgment?

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1251/70 of 29 June 1970 on the right of workers to remain in the territory of a Member State after having been employed in that State (OJ, English Special Edition, 1970 (II), p. 402).

      (2)  Council Directive 93/96/EEC of 29 October 1993 on the right of residence for students (OJ 1993 L 317, p. 59).


title: Case C-281/14 P: Appeal brought on 9 June 2014 by the Società per l’aeroporto civile di Bergamo-Orio al Serio SpA (SACBO SpA) against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 31 March 2014 in Case T-270/13 Società per l’aeroporto civile di Bergamo-Orio al Serio SpA (SACBO SpA) v European Commission and Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA)

text:
               1.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 292/17

         Appeal brought on 9 June 2014 by the Società per l’aeroporto civile di Bergamo-Orio al Serio SpA (SACBO SpA) against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 31 March 2014 in Case T-270/13 Società per l’aeroporto civile di Bergamo-Orio al Serio SpA (SACBO SpA) v European Commission and Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA)
   (Case C-281/14 P)
   2014/C 292/21
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Società per l’aeroporto civile di Bergamo-Orio al Serio SpA (SACBO SpA) (represented by: M. Muscardini, G. Greco and G. Carullo, avvocati)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission and Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA)

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               after establishing that SACBO has a right of action and that the decision of 18 March 2013 is an actionable measure, set aside in its entirety the order of the General Court of 31 March 2014 in Case T-270/13 and accordingly — if the Court of Justice considers that the state of the proceedings so permits for the purposes of the first paragraph of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice — uphold in full the form of order sought at first instance, with all the attendant legal consequences, as follows: after establishing that there was no intention to evade payment and that the co-financed activity was not artificially subdivided, annul the decision adopted on 18 March 2013 by the Trans-European Transport Network Executive Agency (TEN-T EA) to the extent that it characterised as ineligible the external costs relating to Activities 1, 2.1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 and consequently reduced the joint funding available and requested repayment of EUR 1 58  517,54;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

               I.

               In support of the appeal against the order by which the General Court declared the action inadmissible.

                           I.1-.

                           Regarding the finding that SACBO lacks legal standing. Error of law: infringement and/or misapplication of the following provisions: fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU; Articles 6 and 13 ECHR; Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; Article III.8.2 of Decision C (2010) 4456; second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU owing to an inadequate and/or contradictory statement of reasons and decision; Article 107 TFEU and Article 108(3) TFEU.

                                       —

                                       the order is flawed in so far as it did not find that, as a co-financer, SACBO is responsible for the entire investment and the implementation thereof and is accordingly affected by all aspects of the contested decision, that is to say, by the non-recovery of the investments made, by the sums to be repaid, and by the complaints set out in that decision, all of which relate to SACBO’s conduct;

                                       —

                                       infringement of Article 107 TFEU and Article 108 TFEU, since the General Court failed to find that the recovery by ENAC (l’Ente Nazionale per l’Aviazione Civile) (Italian Civil Aviation Authority) of the joint funding is obligatory under EU law, with non-repayment constituting unlawful State aid;

                                       —

                                       the order is flawed in so far as it did not consider SACBO’s role in the process which led to the adoption of the contested decision;

                                       —

                                       the order is flawed in so far as it did not consider SACBO’s legal standing, arising from the harm done to its image as a result of the contested decision.

                           I .2-.

                           Regarding the finding that the contested decision is not an actionable measure. Error of law: infringement and/or misapplication of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU and infringement of Article III.3.6 and Article III.3.9 of the financing decision; infringement and/or misapplication of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU owing to a contradictory statement of reasons.

                                       —

                                       the order is flawed in so far as it did not find that the financing decision also constitutes the repayment obligation as it clearly and definitively establishes the level of funding and the sums to be repaid;

                                       —

                                       the order is flawed in so far as it did not find that the contested decision constitutes the final closing act in the funding reduction process, independent of and separate from the subsequent stage of actual recovery.

               II.

               Reproduction of the pleas in law relied upon at first instance (1) for the purposes of the first paragraph of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice.

      (1)  OJ C 207, p. 46.


title: Case C-251/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de commerce de Bruxelles (Belgium), lodged on 22 May 2012 — Christian van Buggenhout and Ilse van de Mierop (lawyers acting as administrators in the insolvency of Grontimmo SA) v Banque Internationale à Luxembourg

text:
               7.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de commerce de Bruxelles (Belgium), lodged on 22 May 2012 — Christian van Buggenhout and Ilse van de Mierop (lawyers acting as administrators in the insolvency of Grontimmo SA) v Banque Internationale à Luxembourg
   (Case C-251/12)
   2012/C 200/18
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de commerce de Bruxelles

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Christian van Buggenhout and Ilse van de Mierop (lawyers acting as administrators in the insolvency of Grontimmo SA)

      Defendant: Banque Internationale à Luxembourg

      Questions referred

               1.

               How should the words ‘obligation … for the benefit of a debtor’ in Article 24 of Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 (1) of 29 May 2000 be interpreted?

               2.

               Must those words be interpreted as including a payment made to a creditor of the insolvent debtor at the latter’s request, in the case where the party which carried out that payment obligation on behalf and for the benefit of the insolvent debtor did so while unaware of the existence of insolvency proceedings which had been opened against the debtor in another Member State?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1).


title: Case T-626/14: Order of the General Court of 24 June 2015 — Wm. Wrigley Jr. v OHIM (Representation of a blue sphere) (Community trade mark — Application for Community figurative mark representing a blue sphere — Absolute grounds for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               21.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/47

         Order of the General Court of 24 June 2015 — Wm. Wrigley Jr. v OHIM (Representation of a blue sphere)
   (Case T-626/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for Community figurative mark representing a blue sphere - Absolute grounds for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
   (2015/C 311/52)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey, S. Brandstätter and C. Schmitt, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 June 2014 (Case R 169/2014-5) relating to an application for registration of a figurative sign representing a blue sphere as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 351, 6.10.2014.


title: Case T-300/07: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2010 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission (Public service contracts — Community tendering procedure — Provision of information technology services relating to the management and maintenance of an internet portal — Rejection of the bid submitted by a tenderer — Award criteria — Obligation to state the reasons on which a decision is based — Manifest error of assessment — Equal treatment — Transparency)

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/32

      Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2010 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
      (Case T-300/07) (1)

      (Public service contracts - Community tendering procedure - Provision of information technology services relating to the management and maintenance of an internet portal - Rejection of the bid submitted by a tenderer - Award criteria - Obligation to state the reasons on which a decision is based - Manifest error of assessment - Equal treatment - Transparency)
      (2010/C 288/60)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. Manhaeve, acting as Agent, and by J. Stuyk, lawyer)

         Re:

      APPLICATION (i) for annulment of the Commission’s decisions of 21 May 2007 and 13 July 2007 rejecting the tenders submitted by the applicant in tendering procedure ENTR/05/78 for Lot 1 (Editorial Work and Translation) and Lot 2 (Infrastructure Management) for the management and maintenance of the ‘Your Europe’ portal (OJ 2006/S 143-153057) and awarding those contracts to another tenderer and (ii) for damages

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls the Commission’s decision of 13 July 2007 rejecting the tender submitted by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE in tendering procedure ENTR/05/78 for Lot 2 (Infrastructure Management) for the management and maintenance of the ‘Your Europe’ portal and awarding that contract to another tenderer;

                  2.

                  Dismisses the remainder of the claim for annulment;

                  3.

                  Dismisses the claim for damages;

                  4.

                  Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis to pay 50 % of its own costs and 50 % of the costs incurred by the European Commission, and the European Commission to pay 50 % of its own costs and 50 % of those incurred by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE.

         (1)  OJ C 235, 6.10.2007.


title: Case C-547/03 P: Appeal brought on 22 December 2003 by Asian Institute of Technology (AIT) against the order made on 15 October 2003 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-288/02 between Asian Institute of Technology (AIT) and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
21.2.2004               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                             C 47/23
2.     Given that Article 3c of Commission Directive 90/388/               3.    otherwise arrange for and open the oral procedure;
       EEC of 28 June 1990 (1), as inserted by Commission
       Directive 96/2/EC of 16 January 1996 (2) amending
       Directive 90/388/EEC with regard to mobile and personal             4.    after which, annul the decision of the European Com-
       communications, refers to the lifting of ‘all restrictions’,              mission of 20 or 27 February 2002 to conclude a research
       does that article preclude the introduction, by a national                contract with T. Lefevre, who states that he is the Director
       or local authority, of a tax on mobile and personal                       of the ‘Center for Energy — Environment Research &
       communications infrastructures used to carry on activities                Development’.
       covered by licences and authorisations?
(1) Commission Directive 90/388/EEC of 28 June 1990 on compe-
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
    tition in the markets for telecommunications services (OJ L 192,
    24.7.1990, p. 10).
(2) Commission Directive 96/2/EEC of 16 January 1996 amending
    Directive 90/388/EEC with regard to mobile and personal com-
    munications (OJ L 20, 26.1.1996, p. 59).
                                                                           (a) Procedural irregularity
                                                                           The Court of First Instance dismissed the AIT’s application in
                                                                           Case T-288/02 as manifestly inadmissible, relying on the
                                                                           provisions of Article 111 of its Rules of Procedure. Manifest
                                                                           inadmissibility may be raised only at the start of the proceed-
                                                                           ings and cannot in any case be based on further investigation.
                                                                           If a ground of inadmissibility is revealed by a measure of
                                                                           inquiry, it is then governed by Article 113 of the Rules of
                                                                           Procedure of the Court of First Instance and not by Article 111.
Appeal brought on 22 December 2003 by Asian Institute                      The safeguard in respect of non-manifest inadmissibility means
of Technology (AIT) against the order made on 15 Octo-                     that, in contrast to Article 111, where the cancellation of the
ber 2003 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First                        oral procedure is automatic, such cancellation is within the
Instance of the European Communities in Case T-288/02                      discretionary power of the Court of First Instance in cases of
between Asian Institute of Technology (AIT) and the                        non-manifest inadmissibility. In this case, the Court of First
          Commission of the European Communities                           Instance has made a finding of manifest inadmissibility based
                                                                           on the results of an additional enquiry, thus depriving the
                                                                           party of the guarantee that cancellation of the oral procedure
                         (Case C-547/03 P)                                 is subject to the CFI’s discretion.
                           (2004/C 47/38)
                                                                           (b)   Error of assessment as to admissibility having regard to
                                                                                the fourth subparagraph of Article 230 of the EC Treaty
An appeal against the order made on 15 October 2003 by the                 Since it is understood that the AIT is not the ‘addressee’ of the
Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European               decision to award the contract, the CFI should have applied
Communities in Case T-288/02 between Asian Institute of                    the test in Plaumann, with the flexibility which the Court of
Technology (AIT) and the Commission of the European                        Justice has brought to that case-law in order to give a
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the                 less restrictive interpretation to the second paragraph of
European Communities on 22 December 2003 by Asian                          Article 173 (now the fourth paragraph of Article 230 of
Institute of Technology (AIT), represented by H. Teissier du               the EC Treaty). ‘CEERD/FIHRDS’ to which the Commission
Cros, avocat, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                   awarded the contract, is a competitor of ‘CEERD/AIT’, and
                                                                           even an unfair competitor. The award of the contract to
                                                                           ‘CEERD/FIHRDS’ by the Commission, which has deprived the
                                                                           AIT of the competitive advantages flowing from the fact that
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                the ‘CEERD/AIT’ is one of its departments, adversely and
                                                                           substantially affects it in its competitive position. The contested
                                                                           decision also impairs the AIT’s entitlement to use its name and
1.     set aside the contested order dated 15 October 2003 of              logo ‘CEERD’, a prejudice which distinguishes its situation in
       the Court of First Instance of the European Communities;            relation to all other economic operators. The contested
                                                                           contract concerns the AIT directly and individually because it
                                                                           substantially affects its competitive position, even though it is
2.     refer the case back to the Court of First Instance;                 not a trader.
 ---pagebreak--- C 47/24               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                       21.2.2004
(c) In the alternative, breach of the AIT’s right to an effective        provisions on administrative measures in fiscal matters, such
      remedy guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter of                  as cooperation between tax authorities enabling or facilitating
      Fundamental Rights of the European Union.                          the collection of tax, are not specifically covered by that
                                                                         provision. The directive and the regulation have therefore been
                                                                         adopted in breach of essential procedural requirements and of
                                                                         the EC Treaty.
                                                                         (1) OJ L 264, 15.10.2003, p. 23.
Action brought on 23 December 2003 by the European
  Parliament against the Council of the European Union
                        (Case C-548/03)
                         (2004/C 47/39)
                                                                         Action brought on 23 December 2003 by the European
                                                                            Parliament against the Council of the European Union
An action against the Council of the European Union was                                          (Case C-549/03)
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 23 December 2003 by the European Parliament,
represented by C. Pennera and A. Neergaard, acting as Agents,                                     (2004/C 47/40)
with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The European Parliament claims that the Court should:
                                                                         An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                         brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
—     annul Council Directive 2003/93/EC amending Directive              ties on 23 December 2003 by the European Parliament,
      77/799/EEC concerning mutual assistance by the com-                represented by C. Pennera and A. Neergaard, acting as Agents,
      petent authorities of the Member States in the field of            with an address for service in Luxembourg.
      direct and indirect taxation (1);
—     maintain the effects of the annulled directive until the           The European Parliament claims that the Court should:
      European Parliament and the Council have adopted, on
      the appropriate legal basis, new legislation;
                                                                         —     annul Council Regulation No 1798/2003 of 7 October
                                                                               2003 on administrative cooperation in the field of value
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                               added tax and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 218/92 (1);
                                                                         —     maintain the effects of the annulled regulation until the
                                                                               European Parliament and the Council have adopted, on
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                               the appropriate legal basis, new legislation;
Directive 2003/93/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1798/03 should               —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
be annulled because they should have been based on Article 95
EC and not on Article 93 EC. The difference in legal basis is not
merely formal, but directly affects the European Parliament’s
prerogatives. Indeed, according to Article 93 EC the Council
acts unanimously after merely consulting the Parliament,                 Pleas in law and main arguments
whereas, under Article 95 EC, the co-decision procedure
applies.
                                                                         The pleas in law and main arguments relied upon are identical
                                                                         to those in Case C-548/03.
According to the field of application determined by the Treaty,
for provisions which have as their object improvement of the
conditions for the establishment and functioning of the                  (1) OJ L 264, 15.10.2003, p. 1.
internal market, the general rule is Article 95 EC. Article 93
EC provides otherwise in relation to indirect taxation, in
derogation, as lex specialis, from Article 95 EC. The ancillary


title: Case F-63/13: Action brought on 27 June 2013 — ZZ v ENISA

text:
               16.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 336/31

         Action brought on 27 June 2013 — ZZ v ENISA
   (Case F-63/13)
   2013/C 336/69
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Agency for Network and Information Security (ENISA)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment, firstly, of the decision to dismiss the applicant and, secondly, of the decision, adopted after the judgment of the CST in Case F-118/10, to appoint another agent to the post of accountant. Finally, compensation for the non-pecuniary harm allegedly suffered.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of ENISA rejecting the applicant’s claim, and the other contested decisions, namely the decision of ENISA of 4 September 2012 dismissing the applicant and the decision of ENISA of 9 October 2012 appointing Mr X. to the post of accountant in the applicant’s place;

               —

               Order ENISA to pay the applicant, in respect of all the abovementioned unlawful acts, the sum of EUR 100 000 as compensation for the non-pecuniary harm;

               —

               Order ENISA to pay the costs.


title: Case T-410/10: Action brought on 13 September 2010 — Bottega Veneta International v OHIM (Shape of a handbag)

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/56

         Action brought on 13 September 2010 — Bottega Veneta International v OHIM (Shape of a handbag)
   (Case T-410/10)
   ()
   2010/C 301/90
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Bottega Veneta International Sarl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by P. Roncaglia, G. Lazzeretti, M. Boletto and E. Gavuzzi, lawyers)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 16 June 2010 in Case R 1539/2009-1;

               —

               Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs of the present proceedings and the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Trade mark consisting of a distinctive three-dimensional sign known as the ‘Cabat’ bag (application for registration No 6632566) for goods in Class 18 (‘bags and handbags’).

      Decision of the Examiner: Refused the application for registration.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Rule 9(3)(a) of Regulation No 2868/95 and Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-411/11 P: Appeal brought on 29 July 2011 by Zdeněk Altner against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 6 July 2011 in Case T-190/11 Altner v Commission

text:
               3.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/2

         Appeal brought on 29 July 2011 by Zdeněk Altner against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 6 July 2011 in Case T-190/11 Altner v Commission
   (Case C-411/11 P)
   2012/C 65/02
   Language of the case: Czech

      Parties

      Appellant: Zdeněk Altner (represented by: J. Čapek, advokát)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
   By order of 15 December 2012 the Court of Justice (Fifth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered Z. Altner to bear his own costs.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 4 November 1997 in Case C-337/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Parfums Christian Dior SA and Parfums Christian Dior BV v. Evora BV (Trade mark rights and copyright - Action brought by the owner of those rights to stop a reseller advertising the further commercialization of goods - Perfume)

text:
20 . 12 . 97             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 387/3
final regional reference amounts for sunflower seeds                     ( Rapporteur ), Judges, A. La Pergola, Advocate General; L.
produced in Portugal — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ),                     Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
composed of: H. Ragnemalm, President of the Chamber,                    judgment on 23 October 1997 in which it:
R. Schintgen, G. F. Mancini, P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur)
and G. Hirsch, Judges, C. O. Lenz, Advocate General;
H. A. Riihl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has             1 . declares that, by determining, for the application of
given a judgment on 23 October 1997, in which it:                             the special consumer tax and the flat-rate added
                                                                              special duty, the taxable value of imported used cars
                                                                              by reducing the price of equivalent new cars by 5 %
 I . dismisses the application;                                               for each year of age of the vehicles concerned, with, as
                                                                              a rule, a maximum reduction of 20% , and by
                                                                              excluding anti-pollution technology imported used cars
2 . orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs;                          from the benefit of the reduced rates of the special
                                                                              consumer tax applicable to that type of vehicle, the
3 . orders the Council of the European Union to bear its                      Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
      own costs .
                                                                              under Article 95 of the Treaty;
(') OJ C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .                                          2 . for the rest, dismisses the application;
                                                                        3 . orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                        (') OJ C 31 , 3 . 2 . 1996 .
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           ( Fifth Chamber)
                         of 23 October 1997
in    Case    C-375/95 : Commission of the European
             Communities v. Hellenic Republic ( 1 )
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Failure to fulfil obligations — Taxation of motor vehicles
                                                                                of 4 November 1997
                          — Discrimination)
                             ( 97/C 387/05 )                            in Case C-337/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                        the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden ): Parfums Christian Dior
                                                                              SA and Parfums Christian Dior BV v. Evora BV (')
                  (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                        (Trade mark rights and copyright — Action brought by
                                                                        the owner of those rights to stop a reseller advertising the
                                                                                further commercialization of goods — Perfume)
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           published in the European Court Reports)                                                  ( 97/C 387/06 )
In Case C-375/95 : Commission of the European                                             (Language of the case: Dutch)
Communities (Agent: Dimitrios Gouloussis ) v. Hellenic
Republic ( Agents : Panagiotis Mylonopoulos and Anna
Rokofyllou ) application for a declaration under Article 169
of the EC Treaty that, by introducing and maintaining in                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
force provisions concerning the taxation of used cars                              published in the European Court Reports)
which, first, for the purposes of calculating the basis of
assessment to the special consumer tax permit only 5 %
for each year of age to be deducted from the selling price              In Case C-337/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
of equivalent new vehicles, which percentage cannot                     of the EC Treaty from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
exceed 20 % of the value of the equivalent new vehicles                 for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before
and, second, govern the levying of the flat-rate added                  that court between Parfums Christian Dior SA and
special duty without any reduction for used cars and,                   Parfums Christian Dior BV, and Evora BV — on the
third, grant tax advantages ( reduction of the special                  interpretation of Articles 30, 36 and the third paragraph
consumer tax ) only in respect of new anti-pollution                    of Article 177 of the EC Treaty and of Articles 5 and 7 of
technology cars and not imported anti-pollution                         the First Council Directive ( 89/ 104/EC ) of 21 December
technology used cars, the Hellenic Republic has failed to               1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States
fulfil its obligations under Article 95 of the EC Treaty —              relating to trade marks ( OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1 ) — the Court,
the Court ( Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. C. Gulmann,                 composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C.
President of Chamber, M. Wathelet, J. C. Moitinho de                    Gulmann ( Rapporteur ), H. Ragnemalm, R. Schintgen,
Almeida , D. A. O. Edward and J. -P. Puissochet                         Presidents of Chambers, G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de
 ---pagebreak--- C 387/4                  EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                  20 . 12 . 97
Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, D.     A. O. Edward,                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann and L.     Sevon, Judges,
F. G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H.              von Holstein,                             of 4 November 1997
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given     a judgment on
4 November 1997, in which it has ruled:                              in Case C-20/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                     the Social Security Commissioner): Kelvin Albert Snares
                                                                                v. The Adjudication Officer (')
1 . where a question relating to the interpretation of the
     First Council Directive (89/104/EEC) of 21 December             (Social security — Special non-contributory benefits —
     1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States               Articles 4 (2a) and 10a of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71
     relating to trade marks is raised in proceedings in one             — Disability living allowance — Non-exportability)
     of the Benelux Member States concerning the
                                                                                ( 97/C 387/07 )
     interpretation of the Uniform Benelux Law on Trade
     Marks, a court against whose decisions there is no
     remedy under national law, as is the case with both
     the Benelux Court and the Hoge Raad der
     Nederlanden, must make a reference to the Court of                              (Language of the case: English)
     Justice under the third paragraph of Article 1 77 of the
     EC Treaty. However, that obligation loses its purpose
     and is thus emptied of its substance when the question
     raised is substantially the same as the question which
     has already been the subject of a preliminary ruling in         In Case C-20/96 : reference to the Court under Article 177
     the same national proceedings;                                  of the EC Treaty from the Social Security Commissioner
                                                                     ( United Kingdom ), for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                     proceedings pending before that court between Kelvin
2 . on a proper interpretation of Articles 5 and 7 of                Albert Snares and The Adjudication Officer — on the
     Directive 89/104, when trade-marked goods have been             interpretation and validity of Articles 4 ( 2a ) and 10a of
     put on the Community market by the proprietor of the            Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971
     trade mark or with his consent, a reseller, besides             on the application of social security schemes to employed
     being free to resell those goods, is also free to make          persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their
     use of the trade mark in order to bring to the public 's        families moving within the Community, as amended and
     attention the further commercialization of those                updated by Council Regulation ( EEC) No 2001 /83 of
     goods;                                                          2 June 1983 ( OJ 1983 L 230, p. 6 ), as subsequently
                                                                     amended by Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1247/92 of
                                                                     30 April 1992 ( OJ 1992 L 136, p. 1 ) — the Court,
3 . the proprietor of a trade mark may not rely on                   composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C.
     Article 7 (2) of Directive 89/104 to oppose the use of          Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet (Presidents of
     the trade mark, by a reseller who habitually markets            Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida
     articles of the same kind, but not necessarily of the           ( Rapporteur ), P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, D. A. O.
     same quality, as the trade-marked goods, in ways                Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann and L. Sevon,
     customary in the reseller's sector of trade, for the            Judges; P. Leger, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,
     purpose of bringing to the public 's attention the              Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
     further commercialization of those goods, unless it is          4 November 1997, in which it has ruled:
     established that, given the specific circumstances of the
     case, the use of the trade mark for this purpose
     seriously damages the reputation of the trade mark;
                                                                     1 . on a proper construction of Article 10a of Council
                                                                         Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the
4 . on a proper interpretation of Articles 30 and 36 of                  application of social security schemes to employed
     the EC Treaty, the proprietor of a trade mark or                    persons, to self-employed persons and to members of
     holder of copyright may not oppose their use by a                   their families moving within the Community, as
     reseller who habitually markets articles of the same                amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC)
     kind, but not necessarily of the same quality, as the               No 2001 /83 of 2 June 1983, as subsequently amended
     protected goods, in ways customary in the reseller's                by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1247/92 of 30 April
     sector of trade, for the purpose of bringing to the                 1992, read in conjunction with Annex 11a, disability
     public 's attention the further commercialization of                living allowance falls within the scope of that
     those goods, unless it is established that, having regard           provision and is therefore a special non-contributory
     to the specific circumstances of the case, the use of               benefit within the meaning of Article 4 (2a) of that
     those goods for that purpose seriously damages their                regulation, with the result that the position of a person
     reputation.                                                         such as the claimant in the main proceedings, who,
                                                                         after 1 June 1992 when Regulation No 1247/92
(') OJ C 351 , 30 . 12 . 1995 .                                          entered into force, satisfied the conditions for the
                                                                         award of that benefit, is governed exclusively by the
                                                                         system of coordination established by the said
                                                                         Article 10a;


title: Case C-80/09 P: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 February 2010 — Volker Mergel, Klaus Kampfenkel, Burkart Bill, Andreas Herden v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 7(1)(c) — Refusal to register — Word mark Patentconsult — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/10

         Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 February 2010 — Volker Mergel, Klaus Kampfenkel, Burkart Bill, Andreas Herden v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-80/09 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 7(1)(c) - Refusal to register - Word mark Patentconsult - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
   2010/C 148/16
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellants: Volker Mergel, Klaus Kampfenkel, Burkart Bill, Andreas Herden (represented by: G.P. Friderichs, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Schäffner, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 16 December 2008 in Case T-335/07 Mergel and Others v OHIM, by which the Court dismissed the action for annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 June 2007, dismissing the action against the decision of the examiner to refuse the registration of the Community word mark ‘Patentconsult’ for the goods and services within Classes 35, 41 and 42 — Distinctive character of a mark which consists exclusively of signs or indications which may serve, in trade, to designate the characteristics of the goods or services concerned

      Operative part of the order

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Mergel, Kampfenkel, Bill and Herden to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 90, 18.4.2009.


title: Case C-445/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 25 September 2014  — Seusen Sume v Landkreis Stade

text:
               8.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 439/23

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 25 September 2014 — Seusen Sume v Landkreis Stade
   (Case C-445/14)
   (2014/C 439/30)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Seusen Sume

      Respondent: Landkreis Stade

      Other party: Vertreter des Bundesinteresses beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the condition requiring residence to be taken up in a geographically limited area (municipality, district, region) of a Member State constitute a restriction of freedom of movement within the meaning of Article 33 of Directive 2011/95/EU (1), where the foreign national can otherwise move and reside freely in the territory of that Member State?

               2.

               Is a place of residence condition imposed on beneficiaries of subsidiary protection status compatible with Article 33 and/or Article 29 of Directive 2011/95/EU, where it is based on the objective of achieving a reasonable distribution of social assistance burdens among the relevant institutions within the territory of the State?

               3.

               Is a place of residence condition imposed on beneficiaries of subsidiary protection status compatible with Article 33 and/or Article 29 of Directive 2011/95/EU, where it is based on grounds of migration or integration policy, for instance to prevent points of social tension as a result of the accumulated settlement of foreign nationals in certain municipalities or districts? Are abstract migration or integration policy grounds sufficient in this regard or must such grounds be specifically ascertained?

      (1)  Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (OJ 2011 L 337, p. 9).


title: Case T-301/10: Action brought on 14 July 2010 — In ‘t Veld v Commission

text:
               25.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/18

         Action brought on 14 July 2010 — In ‘t Veld v Commission
   (Case T-301/10)
   ()
   2010/C 260/25
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Sophie in t Veld (Brussels, Belgium), (represented by: O. Brouwer and J. Blockx, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Decision of the Commission of 4 May 2010, ref. SG.E.3/HP/psi-Ares (2010) 234950, to refuse full access to the applicant’s confirmatory request for access to documents; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs of any intervening parties.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By means of the present application, the applicant seeks, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, the annulment of the Decision of the Commission of 4 May 2010 to refuse full access to documents concerning the negotiations of a new Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, requested by the applicant pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1).
   In support of his action, the applicant submits the following pleas in law:

               Firstly, the Commission’s Decision infringes Article 8(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 as it impliedly refuses access to a number of documents requested by the applicant by failing to explain why access to these documents was refused.

               Secondly, the decision in question is based on an erroneous application of Article 4(4) of Regulation No 1049/2001 as the Commission failed to treat Article 4(4) as a procedural rule regarding the consultation of third parties and in fact applied it as a further exception to the obligation to disclose documents.

               Thirdly, the Commission’s Decision misapplied in law and in fact Article 4(1)(a), third indent, of Regulation No 1049/2001:

                           —

                           Firstly, as the general reasons provided by the Commission cannot in principle be covered by the exception for the protection of the public interest as regard the European Union’s international relations;

                           —

                           Secondly, as the Contested Decision contains manifest errors in its assessment of individual documents.

               In addition, should the Court consider that any parts of the documents requested by the applicant are protected under Article 4(1)(a), third indent of Regulation No 1049/2001, the applicant submits that Article 4(6) has been wrongly applied, and the principle of proportionality breached, insofar as the Commission has failed to consider whether it was appropriate to grant partial access and to confine refusal to the parts of documents that were appropriate and strictly necessary.

               Finally, the applicant also submits that the Commission did not fulfil its obligation to state reasons for the decision in question, thereby breaching Article 296 TFEU.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).