title: Case T-421/07 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 18 September 2015 — Deutsche Post AG v Commission (State Aid — Postal delivery — Measures taken by the German authorities in favour of Deutsche Post AG — Decision to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) EC — Interest in bringing proceedings — Reopening of a closed procedure — Effects of a judgment anulling a measure)

text:
               9.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 September 2015 — Deutsche Post AG v Commission
   (Case T-421/07 RENV) (1)

   ((State Aid - Postal delivery - Measures taken by the German authorities in favour of Deutsche Post AG - Decision to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) EC - Interest in bringing proceedings - Reopening of a closed procedure - Effects of a judgment anulling a measure))
   (2015/C 371/21)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Deutsche Post AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: J. Seddemund and T. Lübbig, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Martenczuk, T Maxian Rusche and R Sauer, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: UPS Europe NV/SA (Brussels, Belgium); and UPS Deutschland Inc. & Co. OHG (Neuss, Germany) (represented by: T. Ottervanger, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission decision of 12 September 2007 to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) [EC] concerning State aid granted by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of Deutsche post AG (State aid C 36/07(ex NN 25/07)).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the Commission decision of 12 September 2007 to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) EC concerning State aid granted by the Federal Republic Of Germany in favour of Deutsche Post AG (State aid C 36/07(ex NN 25/07)) in so far as it initiated the formal investigation procedure in respect of the public measures concerned, with the exception of the State guarantees granted in favour of Deutsche Bundespost Postdienst and Deutsche Post;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay those incurred by Deutsche Post in respect of the action for annulment, including those incurred in the appeal proceedings before the Court of Justice;

               3.

               Orders UPS Europe NV/SA and UPS Deutschland Inc. & Co. OHG to pay their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 22, 26.1.2008


title: Case T-632/11: Action brought on 12 December 2011 — Hellenic Republic v Commission

text:
               11.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/19

         Action brought on 12 December 2011 — Hellenic Republic v Commission
   (Case T-632/11)
   2012/C 39/37
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I. Khalkias and S. Papaioannou)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               uphold the action;

               —

               annul in whole or in part the Commission implementing decision of 14 October 2011 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), notified under document C(2011) 7105 and published at OJ L 270, p. 33, on 15 October 2011, or in the alternative modify it in accordance with the matters that have been more specifically set out;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its action, the Hellenic Republic seeks the annulment of the Commission implementing decision of 14 October 2011 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), notified under document C(2011) 7105 and published at OJ L 270, p. 33, on 15 October 2011, in so far as it concerns financial corrections imposed on the Hellenic Republic in the context of the single payment scheme and in the context of the schemes for the restructuring and conversion of vineyards, distillation and assistance for particular uses of must.
   In relation to the correction in the context of the single payment scheme, the applicant asserts, first, that the application of flat-rate corrections in the context of the single payment scheme is unlawful because (a) the imposition of flat-rate corrections in the first year of application of the CAP infringes the general principle of equity and of cooperation and (b) there is no valid legal basis for the application of the old guidelines in Document VI/5530/1997 to the new CAP and to the single payment scheme or, in the alternative, the application of the old guidelines to the new CAP seriously infringes the principle of proportionality.
   Second, the applicant states that the Commission’s assessment that the criteria for allocation of the national reserve were not consistent with the provisions of Article 42 of Regulation No 1782/2003 (1) and Article 21 of Regulation No 795/2004 (2) is based on an erroneous interpretation of those provisions and on an erroneous assessment of the facts.
   Third, the applicant submits in connection with the flat-rate 10 % correction imposed that the matters found by the Commission in relation to the national criteria for allocating a national reserve, to the non-inclusion of all the forage areas in the calculation of the reference areas/amounts and to the calculation of the regional average do not constitute infringements of Regulation No 1290/2005 and the Commission is imposing financial corrections pursuant to that regulation unlawfully. In any event, the applicant submits that the Commission interpreted and applied incorrectly Article 31 of Regulation No 1290/2005 (3) and the guidelines in Document VI/5530/1997 because (a) the criticisms which the Commission relies upon in relation to the criteria for allocation of the national reserve, even if assumed to be correct, did not lead to the payment of sums to persons not entitled and did not create the risk of loss for the EAGF and (b) the criticisms in questions are not linked to the failure to apply a key control and therefore do not justify the imposition of a flat-rate correction of 10 %.
   In relation to the correction in the wine sector, the applicant submits that the Commission assessed the facts incorrectly in relation to the following specific points: the vineyard register, distillation and assistance for the use of must, the mandatory distillation of by-products and vineyard restructuring and conversion. Those points clearly do not justify a 10 % correction under the guiding principles for financial corrections in the clearance procedure, a correction which is clearly disproportionate in relation to the deficiencies which were recorded in the accounting system.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001.

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 795/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of the single payment scheme provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers.

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy.


title: Case C-300/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratif (Luxembourg) lodged on 19 June 2015 — Charles Kohll, Sylvie Kohll-Schlesser v Director of the Administration des Contributions Directes

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/34

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratif (Luxembourg) lodged on 19 June 2015 — Charles Kohll, Sylvie Kohll-Schlesser v Director of the Administration des Contributions Directes
   (Case C-300/15)
   (2015/C 294/43)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal Administratif

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Charles Kohll, Sylvie Kohll-Schlesser

      Defendant: Director of the Administration des Contributions Directes

      Question referred

   Does the principle of freedom of movement for workers, as enshrined in particular in Article 45 TFEU, preclude the provisions of Article 139ter(1) of the Law of 4 December 1967 on income tax, as amended, in so far as they restrict eligibility for the tax credit established there to persons in possession of a tax deduction form?


title: Case F-17/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 29 April 2015 — Ibánez Martínez v Parliament (Civil Service — Officials — Award of merit points — Opinion of the Reports Committee — Wide discretion of the administration — Equal treatment)

text:
               15.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 198/49

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 29 April 2015 — Ibánez Martínez v Parliament
   (Case F-17/14) (1)

   ((Civil Service - Officials - Award of merit points - Opinion of the Reports Committee - Wide discretion of the administration - Equal treatment))
   (2015/C 198/67)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Carlos Ibánez Martínez (Leeuw-Saint-Pierre, Belgium) (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: V. Montebello-Demogeot and N. Chemaï, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment of the decision not to award the applicant three merit points in the 2012 promotion year

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Ibánez Martínez to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament.

      (1)  OJ C 184, 16.6.2014, p. 41.


title: Case C-97/06: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 18 October 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid — Spain) — Navicon SA v Administración del Estado (Sixth VAT Directive — Exemptions — Article 15(5) — The concept of chartering sea-going vessels — Compatibility of a national law allowing the exemption for full chartering only)

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/12

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 18 October 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid — Spain) — Navicon SA v Administración del Estado
   (Case C-97/06) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Exemptions - Article 15(5) - The concept of ‘chartering sea-going vessels’ - Compatibility of a national law allowing the exemption for full chartering only)
   (2007/C 315/19)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Referring court
   Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Navicon SA

      Respondent: Administración del Estado
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid — Interpretation of Article 15(5) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Exemption for the chartering of sea-going vessels — Inclusion or non-inclusion of partial chartering — Compatibility with the directive of a national law allowing exemption only for full chartering
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 15(5) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 92/111/EEC of 14 December 1992, must be interpreted as covering both full chartering and partial chartering of vessels used for navigation on the high seas. Consequently, that provision precludes national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which grants the benefit of the exemption from value added tax only in the case of full chartering of such vessels.

               2.

               It is for the referring court to determine whether the contract in issue in the main proceedings satisfies the conditions of a chartering contract within the meaning of Article 15(5) of Sixth Directive 77/388, as amended by Directive 92/111.

      (1)  OJ C 131, 3.6.2006.


title: Case C-169/13: Action brought on 5 April 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/19

         Action brought on 5 April 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-169/13)
   2013/C 171/39
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: N. Yerrell and J. Hottiaux, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to ensure the application of Directive 2002/15/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 on the organisation of the working time of persons performing mobile road transport activities, (1) with regard to self-employed drivers, and in any event by not notifying the Commission of those provisions, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2(1), 3 to 7 and 11 of that directive;

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Directive 2002/15/EC has been applicable to self-employed drivers since 23 March 2009.

      (1)  OJ 2002 L 80, p. 35.


title: Case T-128/05: Action brought on 18 March 2005 by Société des Plantations de Mbanga ‘SPM’ against the Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities

text:
               9.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/23

         Action brought on 18 March 2005 by Société des Plantations de Mbanga ‘SPM’ against the Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-128/05)
   (2005/C 171/39)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 18 March 2005 by Société des Plantations de Mbanga ‘SPM’, established at Douala (Cameroun), represented by Pierre Soler-Couteaux, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               order the Commission and the Council jointly and severally to pay compensation for the damage suffered in the amount of EUR 15 163 825 together with interest at the statutory rate;

               2.

               order the Commission and the Council to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant produces, processes, and markets bananas for export in the Republic of Cameroon and in other countries. In order to market its bananas within the Community, the applicant is required to obtain import licences from importer operators, because it is not an operator, for the purpose of the Community legislation, and it is not part of a European or multinational group.
   The applicant claims that importer operators misuse the Community provisions governing the Community system of banana imports for their own benefit by reintroducing, by means of an excessive and disproportionate charge on import licences, duty on banana imports from ACP States normally subject to a zero duty.
   The applicant submits that, by failing to take account of a very distinct category of economic operators in the banana sector, the ‘independent’ ACP producers, which are neither operators nor part of large European or multinational groups and, by failing to adopt the appropriate measures to remedy the consequences arising from that, although the Commission is bound to avoid disrupting normal commercial relations between persons at different levels of the commercial chain, the Council and the Commission have conducted themselves in such a manner as to incur non-contractual liability.
   The applicant also pleads a manifest disregard for the limits of the discretion of the Council and the Commission, relying on five pleas alleging:

               —

               introduction of a law which favours anti-competitive practices;

               —

               absence of measures intended to counter those anti-competitive effects;

               —

               infringement of the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty;

               —

               infringement of the principle of non-discrimination and

               —

               infringement of the principle of freedom to pursue a trade or profession.

         The applicant further relies on an infringement of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC by the operators.


title: Case T-114/06 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 20 July 2006 — GLOBE v Commission of the European Communities (Public procurement — Community tendering procedure — Procedure for interim relief — Prima facie case — Urgency)

text:
               30.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 237/8

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 20 July 2006 — GLOBE v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-114/06 R)
   (Public procurement - Community tendering procedure - Procedure for interim relief - Prima facie case - Urgency)
   (2006/C 237/15)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: GLOBE NV (Zandhoven, Belgium) (represented by: A. Abate, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Wilderspin and G. Boudot, agents)
   Re:
   Suspension of the operation of the Commission's decision to reject the applicant's tender in connection with the tendering procedure for supplies to various countries in Central Asia (EuropeAid/122078/C/S/Multi).
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The operation of the Commission's decision to award the tender to IGN France international in connection with the tendering procedure for supplies to various countries in Central Asia (EuropeAid/122078/C/S/Multi) and the performance of the contract concluded by the Commission with IGN France international are suspended until the Court of First Instance has ruled on the application in the main proceedings.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case C-74/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 April 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Finland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Taxation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 9 and 11 — National legislation permitting the inclusion of non-taxable persons in a group of persons which can be regarded as a single taxable person for VAT purposes and restricting the possibility of forming such a group to the financial and insurance sector)

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/3

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 April 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Finland
   (Case C-74/11) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 9 and 11 - National legislation permitting the inclusion of non-taxable persons in a group of persons which can be regarded as a single taxable person for VAT purposes and restricting the possibility of forming such a group to the financial and insurance sector)
   2013/C 171/05
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: I. Koskinen and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by: H. Leppo, J. Heliskoski and S. Hartikainen, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek and T. Müller, acting as Agents); Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: C. Vang, acting as Agent); Ireland (represented by: D. O’Hagan, acting as Agent, and G. Clohessy, SC, and N. Travers, BL); Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk and S. Johannesson, acting as Agents); United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: H. Walker, acting as Agent, and M. Hall, QC)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 9 and 11 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of Value Added Tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — National legislation permitting non-taxable persons to be included in a VAT group and restricting the VAT group system to providers of financial services and insurance services.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland, the Kingdom of Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 9.4.2011.


title: Case T-298/10: Judgment of the General Court of 8 March 2012 — Arrieta D. Gross v OHIM — International Biocentric Foundation and Others (BIODANZA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark BIODANZA — Earlier national word mark BIODANZA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Death of the trade mark applicant before adoption of the decision of the Board of Appeal — Admissibility of the response — Absence of genuine use of the earlier trade mark — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Proceedings before the Board of Appeal — Rights of defence — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               21.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 8 March 2012 — Arrieta D. Gross v OHIM — International Biocentric Foundation and Others (BIODANZA)
   (Case T-298/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark BIODANZA - Earlier national word mark BIODANZA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Death of the trade mark applicant before adoption of the decision of the Board of Appeal - Admissibility of the response - Absence of genuine use of the earlier trade mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Proceedings before the Board of Appeal - Rights of defence - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)
   2012/C 118/41
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Christina Arrieta D. Gross (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: J.-P. Ewert, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Rolando Mario Toro Araneda (Santiago de Chile, Chile)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 April 2010 (Case R 1149/2009-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Christina Arrieta D. Gross and Rolando Mario Toro Araneda.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Grants leave to the International Biocentric Foundation Ltd, Gabriela Cedilia Toro Acuña and Hilda Pilar Toro Acuña, Rolando Patricio Toro Acuña, Maria Verónica Toro Acuña, Ricardo Marcela Toro Durán and German Toro Gonzalez, Claudia Danae Toro Sanchez, Rodrigo Paulo Toro Sanchez, Mariela Paula Toro Sanchez, Viviana Luz Toro Matuk, Morgana Fonteles Toro, Anna Laura Toro Sant’ana, Joana Castoldi Toro Araneda and Claudete Sant’ana to intervene before the General Court;

               2.

               Dismisses the action;

               3.

               Orders Christina Arrieta D. Gross to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 25.9.2010.


title: Case C-430/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 8 July 2004 in the case of Finanzamt Eisleben against Feuerbestattungsverein Halle e.V.

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/33

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 8 July 2004 in the case of Finanzamt Eisleben against Feuerbestattungsverein Halle e.V.
   (Case C-430/04)
   (2004/C 300/62)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) (Germany) of 8 July 2004 received at the Court Registry on 7 October 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Finanzamt Eisleben against Feuerbestattungsverein Halle e.V., on the following question:
   Is a private taxable person able to rely on the second subparagraph of Article 4(5) of Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) where that taxable person is in competition with a body governed by public law and asserts that the non-taxation or undertaxation of that body is unlawful?

      (1)  OJ L 145, p. 1.


title: Case C-176/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 16 April 2012 — Association de médiation sociale v Union locale des syndicats CGT, Hichem Laboubi, Union départementale CGT des Bouche-du-Rhône, Confédération générale du travail (CGT)

text:
               23.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/5

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 16 April 2012 — Association de médiation sociale v Union locale des syndicats CGT, Hichem Laboubi, Union départementale CGT des Bouche-du-Rhône, Confédération générale du travail (CGT)
   (Case C-176/12)
   2012/C 184/08
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Association de médiation sociale

      Defendants: Union locale des syndicats CGT, Hichem Laboubi, Union départementale CGT des Bouche-du-Rhône, Confédération générale du travail (CGT)

      Questions referred

               1.

               May the fundamental right of workers to information and consultation, recognised by Article 27 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and as specified in the provisions of Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community, (1) be invoked in a dispute between private individuals in order to assess the compliance of a national measure implementing the directive?

               2.

               In the affirmative, may those same provisions be interpreted as precluding a national legislative provision which excludes from the calculation of staff numbers in the undertaking, in particular to determine the legal thresholds for putting into place bodies representing staff, workers with the following contracts: apprentice, contrat initiative-emploi, contrat d’accompagnement dans l’emploi and contrat de professionnalisation?

      (1)  Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community — Joint declaration of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on employee representation (OJ 2002 L 80, p. 29).


title: Case C-487/06 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 December 2008 — British Aggregates Association v Commission of the European Communities, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Appeal — State aid — Environmental levy on aggregates in the United Kingdom)

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/4

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 December 2008 — British Aggregates Association v Commission of the European Communities, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-487/06 P) (1)

   (Appeal - State aid - Environmental levy on aggregates in the United Kingdom)
   (2009/C 44/06)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellant: British Aggregates Association (represented by: C. Pouncey, Solicitor, and L. Van den Hende, advocaat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Flett, B. Martenczuk and T. Scharf, Agents); United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: T. Harris, M. Hall and G. Facenna, Agents)
   Re:
   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) of 13 September 2006 in Case T-210/02 British Aggregates Association v Commission, by which the Court of First Instance rejected as unfounded an application for the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2002) 1478 final of 24 April 2002 not to raise objections to the system of levies on quarry aggregates in the United Kingdom (State aid 863/01 — United Kingdom, Aggregates Levy)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court (Third Chamber):

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 13 September 2006 in Case T-210/02 British Aggregates Association v Commission;

               2.

               Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance of the European Communities;

               3.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.


title: Case T-218/99: Action brought on 30 September 1999 by Anton Dürbeck GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 6/24                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      8.1.2000
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             Action brought on 30 September 1999 by Anton Dürbeck
                                                                        GmbH against the Commission of the European Com-
— annul the Commission’s decision (C(1999) 2539 final) (1)                                           munities
    of 20 July 1999 concerning State aid granted by the
    Netherlands to 633 service stations in the region bordering
    Germany, and order that no demand for repayment should                                       (Case T-218/99)
    be made;
— alternatively, decide the matter in such way as the Court                                       (2000/C 6/45)
    shall consider to be fair and reasonable;
— order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Language of the Case: German)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case             ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
T-210/99.                                                               European Communities on 30 September 1999 by Anton
                                                                        Dürbeck GmbH, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, represented by
                                                                        Gert Meier, Rechtsanwalt, Berrenrather Strasse 313, Cologne.
(1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        1. annul, on the ground of infringement of the Treaty, the
                                                                             Commission decision of 28 July 1999 on the adoption of
Action brought on 30 September 1999 by Ter Huurne’s                          transitional measures in favour of A. Dürbeck within the
Handelsmaatschappij B.V. against the Commission of the                       framework of the common organisation of the market in
                    European Communities                                     bananas;
                        (Case T-216/99)
                                                                        2. order the Commission to pay the costs.
                          (2000/C 6/44)
                   (Language of the Case: Dutch)                        Pleas in law and main arguments
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              By the contested decision, the Commission refused to award
European Communities on 30 September 1999 by Ter Huur-                  the applicant additional licences for the import of
ne’s Handelsmaatschappij B.V., of Haaksbergen (Netherlands),            25 000 tonnes of bananas from third countries because a case
represented by H.C. van der Sijs, of the Enschede Bar, with an          of hardship was not present, the applicant’s current situation
address for service in Luxembourg at the Registry of the Court          was already to be regarded as balanced and that situation
of First Instance, Kirchberg.                                           could, moreover, have been foreseen.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        The applicant complains that Article 30 of Regulation
— annul the Commission’s decision (C(1999) 2539 final) (1)              No 404/93 (1) has been infringed.
    of 20 July 1999 concerning State aid granted by the
    Netherlands to 633 service stations in the region bordering
    Germany;                                                            According to the applicant, the hardship to be offset consists
                                                                        in its inability to import the bananas covered by the contract
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                which it concluded in 1991 with the enterprise Consultban in
                                                                        Machala, Ecuador for the weekly marketing of 100 000 to
                                                                        150 000 crates of bananas. It has also lost licences in respect
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         of 14 312 tonnes of bananas as a result of the change in
                                                                        the reference period pursuant to Article 4(2) of Regulation
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case             No 2362/98 (2). The ensuing loss of 75 % of its import rights
T-210/99.                                                               has caused the applicant serious difficulties and has practically
                                                                        meant its elimination from the market. The loss amounts to
                                                                        DM 3 578 000, that is to say double its share capital. Under
(1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
                                                                        Article 30 of Regulation No 404/93 the defendant is obliged
                                                                        to compensate for the hardship which has been caused by
                                                                        Regulation No 2362/98.
 ---pagebreak--- 8.1.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 6/25
The applicant states that the defendant is proceeding on the             Action brought on 6 October 1999 by Luc Dejaiffe against
basis of incorrect facts when it assumes that the applicant’s               the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
contract with Consultban was extended by seven years after
Regulation No 2362/98 entered into force.                                                        (Case T-223/99)
(1) OJ L 47 of 25.2.1993, p. 1.                                                                    (2000/C 6/47)
(2) OJ L 293 of 31.10.1998, p. 33.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                         Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 6 October 1999 by Luc Dejaiffe,
Action brought on 30 September 1999 by Joachim                           residing at Nivelles (Belgium), represented by Georges Vander-
           Behmer against the European Parliament                        sanden, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                         Luxembourg at the offices of Société de Gestion Fiduciaire
                        (Case T-220/99)                                  SARL, 2-4 Rue Beck.
                          (2000/C 6/46)                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         — annul the decision taken by the appointing authority of
                   (Language of the case: French)                            the Office on 21 December 1998 unilaterally terminating
                                                                             the applicant’s employment contract;
An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                  — award the applicant, by way of compensation for the
on 30 September 1999 by Joachim Behmer, residing in                          material and non-material damage suffered by him, a sum,
Luxembourg, represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Greta-Françoise                  to be assessed on an equitable basis, amounting to
Parmentier and Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar, with an                 EUR 10 000 and a sum equivalent to the prejudice caused
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire               to his career and to the diminution in his pension rights
Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange.                                              and allowances;
                                                                         — order the defendant to pay all the costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the European Parliament’s decision rejecting the                 Pleas in law and main arguments
     application by the applicant for the grade LA 3 post of
     Deputy Head of the German language Translation Division;
                                                                         The applicant contests the decision taken on 21 December
— annul the European Parliament’s decision appointing                    1998 by the President of the defendant organisation providing
     another person to that post;                                        for the early termination of the applicant’s contract of
                                                                         employment, pursuant to Article 5(b) of that contract and the
— order the Parliament to pay the costs.                                 provisions of Article 47(1)(b) of the Conditions of employment
                                                                         of other servants (‘the Conditions’), with effect from 15 Febru-
                                                                         ary 1999.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         According to the applicant’s account of the facts, that termin-
The applicant, a Grade LA 4 official, contests the appointing            ation constituted the appointing authority’s response to the
authority’s refusal to appoint him to the post of Deputy Head            way in which, at a meeting of a working group, he had hotly
of the German language Translation Division (career bracket:             contested the premature introduction of a software system,
LA 3).                                                                   pointing out certain technical deficiencies which would, in his
                                                                         view, have an adverse effect on the proper execution of
In support of his claims, he pleads infringement of:                     financial transactions and proposing technical steps to mitigate
                                                                         those deficiencies.
— Articles 7, 29 and 45 of the Staff Regulations;
                                                                         In support of his claim, the applicant pleads infringement of
— the principle of equal treatment;                                      Article 26 of the Staff Regulations and of the right to a fair
                                                                         hearing, the commission in the present case of a manifest error
— the principle of career progression.                                   of assessment, the unlawful nature of his dismissal, violation
                                                                         of the right to freedom of expression and of the principle of
The applicant also pleads a manifest error of assessment in the          proportionality, and failure to observe the rules governing
present case, as well as failure by the defendant to comply with         disciplinary proceedings (infringement of Article 50a of the
its obligation to provide a statement of reasons.                        Conditions).


title: Case T-600/13: Order of the General Court of 24 February 2014 — Bimbo v OHIM (FIBRA PROTEÍNAS NUTRIENTES)

text:
               5.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 135/61

         Order of the General Court of 24 February 2014 — Bimbo v OHIM (FIBRA PROTEÍNAS NUTRIENTES)
   (Case T-600/13) (1)

   2014/C 135/81
   Language of the case: Spanish
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 31, 1.2.2014.


title: Cases C-482/00, C-497/00, C-498/00 and C-499/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio by judgments of that court of 6 July 2000 in the cases of Aziende Agricole Ettore Raffa and Others v Azienda di Stato per gli Interventi nel Mercato Agricolo (AIMA) and the Ministry of the Treasury, the Budget and Planning (Case C-482/00); Azienda Agricola Gonal di Gonzato Simone e Stefano (C-497/00), Azienda Agricola Gianluigi Cerati and Maria Ceriali s.s. v AIMA and the Ministry of the Treasury, the Budget and Planning (Case C-498/00), and Musini Nicolò Giovanni Maria v AIMA and the Ministry of the Treasury, the Budget and Planning (Case C-499/00)

text:
7.4.2001               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 108/3
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio by order of that                  Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio by judgments of
court of 6 July 2000 in the case of Domenico Buttiglione                that court of 6 July 2000 in the cases of Aziende Agricole
and Others against Azienda di Stato per gli Interventi nel              Ettore Raffa and Others v Azienda di Stato per gli
Mercato Agricolo (AIMA) and the Ministry of Agricul-                    Interventi nel Mercato Agricolo (AIMA) and the Ministry
               tural, Food and Forestry Policies                        of the Treasury, the Budget and Planning (Case C-482/00);
                                                                        Azienda Agricola Gonal di Gonzato Simone e Stefano
                                                                        (C-497/00), Azienda Agricola Gianluigi Cerati and Maria
                        (Case C-481/00)                                 Ceriali s.s. v AIMA and the Ministry of the Treasury, the
                                                                        Budget and Planning (Case C-498/00), and Musini Nicolò
                                                                        Giovanni Maria v AIMA and the Ministry of the Treasury,
                        (2001/C 108/04)                                           the Budget and Planning (Case C-499/00)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 6 July 2000 of the
                                                                            (Cases C-482/00, C-497/00, C-498/00 and C-499/00)
Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio, received at
the Court Registry on 29 December 2000, for a preliminary
ruling in Case C-481/00 Domenico Buttiglione and Others
against Azienda di Stato per gli Interventi nel Mercato Agricolo
(AIMA) and the Ministry of Agricultural, Food and Forestry                                      (2001/C 108/05)
Policies, on the following questions:
(1) May the provisions contained in Articles 1 and 4 of                 References have been made to the Court of Justice of the
     Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 (1) of 28 December             European Communities by judgments of 6 July 2000 of the
     P92 and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation                  Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio, received at
     (EEC) No 534/93 (2) of 9 March 1993 be interpreted as              the Court Registry on 29 December 2000, for a preliminary
     meaning that it is possible, in cases of administrative or         ruling in the cases of Aziende Agricole Ettore Raffa and Others
     judicial challenge to the relevant measures, to derogate           v Azienda di Stato per gli Interventi nel Mercato Agricolo
     from the time-limits prescribed for the allocation of              (AIMA) and the Ministry of the Treasury, the Budget and
     quotas and the operation of adjustments and levies?                Planning (Case C-482/00); Azienda Agricola Gonal di Gonzato
                                                                        Simone e Stefano (C-497/00), Azienda Agricola Gianluigi
                                                                        Cerati and Maria Ceriali s.s. v AIMA and the Ministry of the
If not:                                                                 Treasury, the Budget and Planning (Case C-498/00), and
                                                                        Musini Nicolò Giovanni Maria v AIMA and the Ministry of the
                                                                        Treasury, the Budget and Planning (Case C-499/00) on the
(2) Are the provisions contained in Articles 1 and 4 of                 following questions:
     Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December
     1992 and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation
     (EEC) No 534/93 of 9 March 1993 valid, in the light of             (1) May the provisions contained in Articles 1 and 4 of
     Article 33 (ex 39) of the Treaty, in so far as they do not               Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 (1) of 28 December
     provide that derogations may be made from the periods                    1992 and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation
     prescribed by those provisions for the allocation of                     (EEC) No 534/93 (2) of 9 March 1993 be interpreted as
     individual reference quantities, for adjustments and levies              meaning that it is possible, in cases of administrative or
     in cases of administrative or judicial challenge to those                judicial challenge to the relevant measures, to derogate
     provisions?                                                              from the time-limits prescribed for the allocation of
                                                                              quotas and the operation of adjustments and levies?
(3) May Regulations No 3950/92 and 536/93 be interpreted
     as permitting Member States to determine privileged
     categories of producers who must be compensated in
     priority to others, in particular by placing the ‘disadvan-        If not,
     taged areas’ in a secondary position in relation to
     mountain areas?
                                                                        (2) Are the provisions contained in Articles 1 and 4 of
                                                                              Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December
                                                                              1992 and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation
(1) OJ L 405, 31.12.1992, p. 1.                                               (EEC) No 534/93 of 9 March 1993 valid, in the light of
(2) OJ L 57, 10.3.1993, p. 12.                                                Article 33 (ex 39) of the Treaty, in so far as they do not
                                                                              provide that derogations may be made from the periods
                                                                              prescribed by those provisions for the allocation of
                                                                              individual reference quantities, for adjustments and levies
                                                                              in cases of administrative or judicial challenge to those
                                                                              provisions?
 ---pagebreak--- C 108/4                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         7.4.2001
(3) May Regulations No 3950/92 and 536/93 be interpreted                 Pleas in law and main arguments
      as meaning that the application of the system introduced
      by that legislation excludes the allocation and official
      notification of individual reference quantities for pro-           —     The Court of First Instance manifestly erred in law by
      ducers or does it exclude the official redistribution among              having regard exclusively to the conditions of free
      its producers by the Member State of the global quantity                 competition: where contracts are concluded at the level
      which that State is guaranteed?                                          of prices on the world market, the burden of proof with
                                                                               regard to free competition must be less onerous. There is
(4) May Articles 3 and 4 of Regulation (EC) No 3950/92 be                      no reason to adhere to the clearly formalistic rule
      interpreted as meaning that no official notification of                  requiring competition between at least three undertakings
      individual reference quantities need be given to producers,              independent of each other if that will not lead to markedly
      or does the allocation of an individual reference quantity               different results. The Court of First Instance therefore
      exclude individual notification to those producers?                      displayed an erroneous conception of the law in failing
                                                                               to attach primary importance to the condition relating to
                                                                               the world market price, or at least in not allowing that
(1) OJ L 405, 31.12.1992, p. 1.                                                condition to influence its assessment of the burden of
(2) OJ L 57, 10.3.1993, p. 12.                                                 proof with regard to free competition.
                                                                         —     The Court of First Instance displayed an erroneous
                                                                               conception of the law in ruling that the principle of free
                                                                               competition was not complied with at the time when the
                                                                               riders to the contracts were entered into:
Appeal brought on 22 January 2001 by Glencore Grain                            —     Community law does not require three offers to be
Ltd against the judgment delivered on 8 November                                     made in respect of each contract concluded;
2000 by the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities (Second Chamber) in Joined Cases
T-485/93, T-491/93, T-494/93 and T-61/98 between Glen-
core Grain Ltd and the Commission of the European                              —     in arriving at its conclusion concerning the require-
                          Communities                                                ment of free competition, the Court of First Instance
                                                                                laid down a rule lacking any foundation as regards
                                                                                the objective and purpose of both Council Decision
                        (Case C-24/01 P)                                             91/658/EEC (1) (‘the Decision’) and Commission
                                                                                Regulation (EEC) No 1897/92 (2) (‘the Regulation’).
                                                                                Neither of those acts requires, for the purposes of
                        (2001/C 108/06)                                              approval pursuant to Article 4 of the Regulation,
                                                                                that each contract must involve offers from at least
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 8 November                               two other independent suppliers which must be
2000 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communi-                         comparable to the offer accepted;
ties (Second Chamber) in Joined Cases T-485/93, T-491/93,
T-494/93 and T-61/98 between Glencore Grain Ltd and the
Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                                —     without making any express statement to that effect,
M.-J. Jonczy and H. van V1iet) was brought before the Court                          the Court of First Instance nevertheless appears to
of Justice of the European Communities on 22 January 2001                            require each supplier to comply with the obligation
by Glencore Grain Ltd, represented by P.V.F. Bos and J.G.A. van                      imposed on the Russian authorities, in their capacity
Zuuren, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                        as the recipient of the loan, requiring consideration,
the Chambers of M. Loesch, 4 Rue Carlo Hammer.                                       ‘upon being officially notified ... of the new contrac-
                                                                                tual terms ..., [of] the responses, favourable or
                                                                                unfavourable, given by at least three independent
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                          undertakings’. That rule was laid down solely in
                                                                                Annex 2-A to the loan agreement concluded by the
—     rule that, in its judgment of 8 November 2000, the                             Community. That subsequent shifting of obligations
      Court of First Instance infringed Community law and/or                         from one party to the other is wrong in law, since
      procedural rules;                                                              rules of which third parties (such as Glencore in the
                                                                                present case) are unaware cannot be invoked against
—     rule that the Court of First Instance should have awarded                      those third parties;
      the damages applied for, and accordingly refer the
      case back to the Court of First Instance for further
      consideration, or alternatively itself award the appellant               —     the Court of First Instance erred in its determination
      the damages sought;                                                            of the case by failing to take into account the
                                                                                Commission’s own administrative practice and the
—     allow, on appeal, the claims made by the appellant.                            obligations flowing therefrom;


title: Case C-100/03: Action brought on 4 March 2003 by the Kingdom of Spain against the Council of the European Union

text:
7.6.2003               EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 135/9
      is not possible is the introduction, by publication, of                  limits which do not exist either for access by French
      amendments of the text approved by the legislature since                 vessels to Spanish coastal waters or for access by vessels
      to do so presupposes a usurpation of its powers.                         of the remaining Member States to the coastal waters of
                                                                               other Member States.
( 1) OJ L 337, 30.12.1999, p. 10.                                       —      Infringement of the Act of Accession of Spain: following
( 2) OJ L 358, 31.12.2002, p. 49.                                              the abolition of limits on access by Spanish vessels to
                                                                               waters under French jurisdiction outside the 12-mile zone
                                                                               upon expiry of the transitional period provided for in the
                                                                               Act of Accession, there is no justification for maintaining
                                                                               the 12-mile derogations. There are no specific measures
                                                                               for access to pelagic species in that zone that might
                                                                               require special management and, furthermore, catches of
                                                                               those pelagic species are taken by the same type of vessels
                                                                               (Cerco).
                                                                               In short, the maintenance of a restrictive and discriminat-
Action brought on 28 February 2003 by the Kingdom of                           ory arrangement for access by Spanish vessels to the
      Spain against the Council of the European Union                          waters of the French 12-mile zone in the Atlantic
                                                                               beyond the transitional period provided for in the Act of
                                                                               Accession, and a derogation from equivalent rules on
                         (Case C-91/03)                                        access to French waters in the Atlantic outside the
                                                                               12 miles in issue, are contrary to the restrictive and
                                                                               limited nature required of any exception to a general rule
                        (2003/C 135/13)                                        of the Treaty, a fortiori when what is being limited is a
                                                                               principle as essential as the principle of non-discrimi-
                                                                               nation on ground of nationality and, infringes the very
                                                                               essence of the provisions of an Act of Accession.
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-            (1 ) OJ L 358, 31.12.2002, p. 59.
ties on 28 February 2003 by the Kingdom of Spain, represented           (2 ) Council Regulation of 20 December 1992 establishing a Com-
by Nuria Díaz Abad, Abogado del Estado, with an address for                  munity system for fisheries and aquaculture, OJ L 389,
service in Luxembourg.                                                       31.12.1992, p. 1.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul point 6 of Annex I to Council Regulation 2371/
      2002 ( 1) of 20 December 2002 on the conversation and
      sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the
      Common Fisheries Policy.
—     order the Council to pay the costs.                               Action brought on 4 March 2003 by the Kingdom of
                                                                              Spain against the Council of the European Union
                                                                                (Case C-100/03)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (2003/C 135/14)
—     Infringement of the principle of non-discrimination:
      during the negotiations for Regulation 2371/2002, Spain
      sought amendment of point 6 of Annex I in order to
      remove the restriction applying to its vessels in the 6 to
      12 mile zone of the Atlantic waters off France deriving
      from the Act of Accession and to balance the conditions           An action against the Council of the European Union was
      of access to that zone with those enjoyed by French               brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
      vessels in Spanish waters. However, the Council decided           ties on 4 March 2003 by the Kingdom of Spain, represented
      to leave point 6 of Annex I unaltered by comparison with          by N. Díaz Abad, Abogado del Estado, with an address for
      that recognised in Regulation 3760/92 (2) and thus to set         service in Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- C 135/10               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                             7.6.2003
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                     adjusted according to the evolution of the various
                                                                                elements. The completion of the transitional period
                                                                                provided for in the Act of Accession of Spain and,
—     annul Regulation (EC) No 2341/2002 ( 1) of 20 December                    consequently, Spain’s full integration in the Common
      2002 fixing for 2003 the fishing opportunities and                        Fisheries Policy, require that this allocation key be
      associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups                  adjusted in so far as it refers to catches in the Community
      of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for                   waters of the North Sea, and that Spanish vessels be
      Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are                  allowed a percentage of the quotas distributed before
      required, in so far as it does not allocate to Spain quotas               Spain’s accession, account being taken of the criteria of
      in proportion to the fishing opportunities in North Sea                   the 1983 allocation key, namely historical fishing activi-
      waters allocated before its Accession;                                    ties (as the Spanish fleet engaged in significant fishing
                                                                                activities in those waters which were stopped by the
                                                                                transitional prohibition on access contained in the Act of
—     order the Council to pay the costs.                                       Accession), the loss of fishing opportunities in the waters
                                                                                of non-member countries and the special activities of
                                                                                zones especially dependent on fisheries and related
                                                                                activities.
                                                                                In connection with this last criterion for setting the
                                                                                allocation key, account must be taken of the fact that, in
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                accordance with recitals 16, 17 and 18 of the Preamble
                                                                                to Regulation 2371/2002 (2), the concept of relative
                                                                                stability must be extended, account being taken, inter
—     Infringement of the principle of non-discrimination: with
                                                                                alia, of the ‘dependence of certain coastal communities
      the completion of the transitional period on 31 December
                                                                                on fishing’ and the ‘particular needs of regions where
      2002, the situation of Spanish fishermen is the same as
                                                                                local populations are especially dependent on fisheries
      that of fishermen of the rest of the Member States and
                                                                                and related activities as decided by the Council in its
      they must enjoy equal access to waters and resources.
                                                                                Resolution of 3 November 1976’; this means that when
      Although before 2003 Spain could not rely on the fishing
                                                                                allocating quotas, in accordance with the principle of
      activities which Spanish vessels carried out in the waters
                                                                                relative stability, it is necessary only to take into account
      of the North Sea during the reference period 1973-1978,
                                                                                the regions whose local populations are at that time
      as the exceptional rules laid down in the Act of Accession
                                                                                especially dependent on fisheries and related activities,
      applied, those activities must now be taken into consider-
                                                                                but that, owing to developments in the socio-economic
      ation for the purpose of adjusting the allocation key,
                                                                                situation of the Member States, that dependence has now
      since only in this way will the system not be contrary to
                                                                                disappeared.
      the principle of non-discrimination. Thus the fishermen
      of each Member State would be obliged to endeavour to
      limit catches in proportion to what they caught before
      the entry into force of the Community system of conser-            (1 ) OJ L 356, 31.12.2002, p. 12.
      vation of resources.                                               (2 ) Council Regulation of 20 December 2002 on the conservation
                                                                              and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the
                                                                              Common Fisheries Policy, OJ L 358, 31.12.2002, p. 59.
—     Infringement of the Act of Accession of Spain: upon
      completion of the transitional period, Spain is fully
      integrated into the Common Fisheries Policy, so that a
      new allocation key for the resources of the North Sea is
      required, based on the criteria used in 1983: historical
      catches, loss of fishing opportunities in the fishing
      grounds of non-member countries and the concept of
      zones dependent on fisheries. The failure to allocate to
      Spain in the contested regulation a share of the quotas in
      the Community waters of the North Sea allocated before             Action brought on 19 March 2003 by the Commission of
      its accession has the effect of extending the transitional         the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
      period beyond that provided for in the Act and of
      infringing the provisions thereof.
                                                                                (Case C-121/03)
—     Infringement of the principle of relative stability: The
      principle of relative stability is something distinct from                                     (2003/C 135/15)
      the allocation key fixed by the Council in 1983 in order
      to apply that principle. The principle of relative stability
      is of general scope and applies to the allocation in
      national quotas of all catch opportunities subject to a
      TAC available to the Community, while the allocation               An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
      balance established in the 1983 allocation key may be              the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 March


title: Case C-440/07 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities, Federal Republic of Germany v Schneider Electric SA, French Republic (Appeal — Concentrations — Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 — Commission decision declaring a concentration incompatible with the common market — Annulment — Non-contractual liability of the Community on account of the illegality found — Conditions)

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/4

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities, Federal Republic of Germany v Schneider Electric SA, French Republic
   (Case C-440/07 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Concentrations - Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 - Commission decision declaring a concentration incompatible with the common market - Annulment - Non-contractual liability of the Community on account of the illegality found - Conditions)
   2009/C 220/06
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Petite, F. Arbault, T. Christoforou, R. Lyal and C.-F. Durand, Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Schneider Electric SA (represented by: M. Pittie and A. Winckler, avocats), Federal Republic of Germany, French Republic

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber — Extended Composition) in Case T-351/03 Schneider Electric SA v Commission, by which the Court of First Instance ordered the European Community to make good, first, the expenses incurred by Schneider Electric in respect of its participation in the resumed merger control procedure which followed the delivery on 22 October 2002 of the judgments of the Court of First Instance in Schneider Electric v Commission (Case T-310/01 and Case T-77/02), and, second, two thirds of the loss sustained by Schneider Electric as a result of the reduction in the transfer price of Legrand SA, which Schneider Electric had to concede to the transferee in exchange for the postponement of the effective date of sale of Legrand until 10 December 2002 — Conditions for the Community to incur non-contractual liability — Concepts of wrongful act, damage and direct causal link between the wrongful act and the damage suffered — ‘Sufficiently serious’ breach of Community law vitiating the procedure for examination of the compatibility of a concentration with the common market.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 July 2007 in Case T-351/03 Schneider Electric v Commission in so far as it:

                           —

                           ordered the European Community to make good two thirds of the loss claimed by Schneider Electric SA as a result of the reduction in the transfer price of Legrand SA, which Schneider Electric conceded to the transferee in exchange for the postponement of the effective date of sale until 10 December 2002;

                           —

                           ordered the amount of that head of loss to be assessed by an expert;

                           —

                           awarded interest on the compensation corresponding to that head of loss;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the appeal;

               3.

               Orders the parties to communicate to the Court of Justice of the European Communities, within the period of three months from delivery of this judgment, the assessment of the loss represented by the costs incurred by Schneider Electric SA as a result of its participation in the resumed merger control procedure which followed delivery of the judgments of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 22 October 2002 in Cases T-310/01 and T-77/02 Schneider Electric v Commission, the assessment to be jointly agreed in accordance with the procedure set out in paragraph 216 of this judgment;

               4.

               Failing such agreement, orders the parties to submit to the Court of Justice of the European Communities, within the same period, their proposed figures;

               5.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action brought by Schneider Electric SA;

               6.

               Orders Schneider Electric SA to pay, in addition to its own costs relating to the proceedings at first instance and on appeal, two thirds of the costs incurred by the Commission of the European Communities in both sets of proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 22, 26.1.2008.


title: Case C-306/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de lo Social No 3 de Orense by order of that Court of 24 June 2003 in the case of Cristalina Salgado Alonso against Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social and Tesoreria General de la Seguridad Social

text:
C 226/8               EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                              20.9.2003
     auction of works of art, antiques and collectors" items            Social and Tesoreria General de la Seguridad Social on the
     imported under temporary importation arrangements,                 following questions:
     the United Kingdom has failed to comply with its obliga-
     tions under Articles 2(1), 5(4)(c), 12(3) and 16(1) of
     the Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 (1) on the
     harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to
     turnover taxes;
                                                                        1.    Do Article 12 and Articles 39 to 42 of the Treaty
                                                                              Establishing the European Community and Article 45 of
2)   order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.                               Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 (1),
                                                                              preclude a national provision under which retirement con-
                                                                              tributions which the unemployment benefit agency pays
                                                                              on behalf of a worker during the period in which he
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                              receives certain unemployment benefits are not to be
                                                                              taken into account for the purposes of completing the
                                                                              various qualifying periods established in the national legis-
The Commission takes the view, that by not taxing the auction-                lation and of conferring entitlement to the old-age pen-
eer's profit margin on imported works of art, collectors"                     sion, when, because of a long period of unemployment,
items and antiques at the standard rate, the United Kingdom                   supposedly protected, it is absolutely impossible for that
has failed to comply with its obligations under the above                     worker to obtain credit for retirement contributions other
mentioned articles of the Sixth VAT Directive.                                than those which are invalidated by law, with the result
                                                                              that only workers who have exercised the right to freedom
                                                                              of movement are affected by that provision of national law
In the Commission's view, there are two taxable events for                    and are unable to qualify for the national retirement pen-
VAT purposes in cases of importation and sale by auction: an                  sion, despite the fact that, under Article 45 of the afore-
importation of goods within the meaning of Article 7(1) and                   mentioned EEC Regulation, those qualifying periods would
a supply of goods within the meaning of Article 26(a).                        have to be regarded as completed?
Contrary to the view held by the United Kingdom, the VAT
system does not imply double taxation, because it is not
required that VAT at the import rate should first be charged            2.    Do Article 12 and Articles 39 to 42 of the Treaty
on the total value of the goods after the sale, and then be                   Establishing the Community and Article 48(1) of Council
charged again at the standard rate on the auctioneer's profit                 Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 preclude
margin.                                                                       national provisions under which retirement contributions
                                                                              which the unemployment benefit agency pays on behalf of
                                                                              a worker during the period in which he receives certain
                                                                              unemployment benefits are not to be taken into account
(1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the                  for the purposes of determining whether the total duration
    harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turn-          of insurance periods or periods of residence covered by the
    over taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of           legislation of that Member State amounts to one year,
    assessment, OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.                                    when, because of a long period of unemployment, suppos-
                                                                              edly protected, it is absolutely impossible for that worker
                                                                              to obtain credit for retirement contributions other than
                                                                              those which fall due and are paid during unemployment,
                                                                              so that only workers who have exercised the right to free-
                                                                              dom of movement are affected by that provision of
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de lo                       national law and are unable to qualify for the national
Social No 3 de Orense by order of that Court of 24 June                       retirement pension, despite the fact that, under Article 48
2003 in the case of Cristalina Salgado Alonso against                         (1) of the aforementioned EEC Regulation, the national
Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social and Tesoreria                       benefit agency could not be alleviated of the obligation
                General de la Seguridad Social                                to award national benefits?
                        (Case C-306/03)
                        (2003/C 226/12)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of
the European Communities by order of the Juzgado de lo                  (1) Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on
Social No 3 de Orense (Social Court No 3, Orense) of                        the application of social security schemes to employed persons and
24 June 2003, received at the Court Registry on 17 July                     their families moving within the Community (English special edi-
2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Cristalina                    tion: Series II Chapter 1971(II), p. 416).
Salgado Alonso against Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad


title: Case C-295/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Giudice di Pace di Bitonto by order of that court of 30 June 2004 in the case of Vincenzo Manfredi against Lloyd Italico Assicurazioni

text:
               9.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/3

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Giudice di Pace di Bitonto by order of that court of 30 June 2004 in the case of Vincenzo Manfredi against Lloyd Italico Assicurazioni
   (Case C-295/04)
   (2004/C 251/05)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Giudice di Pace di Bitonto (Magistrates' Court, Bitonto, Italy) of 30 June 2004, received at the Court Registry on 13 July 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Vincenzo Manfredi against Lloyd Italico Assicurazioni on the following questions:

               1.

               Is Article 81 of the Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that it renders void an agreement or concerted practice between insurance companies consisting of a mutual exchange of information which makes it possible to increase RC auto insurance policy premiums which are not justified by market conditions, including in view of the fact that undertakings from several Member States took part in the agreement or concerted practice?

               2.

               Is Article 81 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that it entitles third parties who have a relevant legal interest to rely on the invalidity of an agreement or practice prohibited by that Community provision and claim damages for the harm suffered where there is a causal relationship between the agreement or concerted practice and the harm?

               3.

               Is Article 81 of the Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that for the purposes of the limitation period for bringing an action for damages based thereon, time begins to run from the day on which the agreement or concerted practice was adopted or the day on which the agreement or concerted practice came to an end?

               4.

               Is Article 81 of the Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that where the national court sees that the damages that can be awarded on the basis of national law are lower than the economic advantage gained by the infringing party to the prohibited agreement or concerted practice, should also award of its own motion punitive damages to the injured third party in order to make the compensable amount higher than the advantage gained by the infringing party and deter the adoption of agreements or concerted practices prohibited under Article 81 of the Treaty?


title: Joined Cases T-80/06 and T-182/09: Judgment of the General Court of 13 February 2012 — Budapesti Erőmű v Commission (State aid — Wholesale electricity market — Favourable terms granted by a Hungarian public undertaking to certain power generators under power purchase agreements — Decision to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) EC — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery — New aid — Private investor test)

text:
               24.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 February 2012 — Budapesti Erőmű v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-80/06 and T-182/09) (1)

   (State aid - Wholesale electricity market - Favourable terms granted by a Hungarian public undertaking to certain power generators under power purchase agreements - Decision to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) EC - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - New aid - Private investor test)
   2012/C 89/30
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Budapesti Erőmű Zrt (Budapest (Hungary)) (represented, in Cases T-80/06 and T-182/09, by M. Powell, C. Arhold and K. Struckmann, lawyers, and also, in Case T-182/09, by A. Hegyi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented, in Cases T-80/06 and T-182/09, by N. Khan, L. Flynn and K. Talabér-Ritz, and also, in Case T-80/06, by V. Di Bucci, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application, in Case T-80/06, for annulment of the Commission’s decision, notified to Hungary by letter of 9 November 2005, to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) EC in relation to State aid C 41/2005 (ex NN 49/2005) — Hungarian Stranded Costs, and, in Case T-182/09, for annulment of Commission Decision 2009/609/EC of 4 June 2008 on the State aid C 41/05 awarded by Hungary through Power Purchase Agreements (OJ 2009 L 225, p. 53).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the actions;

               2.

               Orders Budapesti Erőmű Zrt to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 108, 6.5.2006.


title: Case C-251/15 P: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 4 February 2016 — Emsibeth SpA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Community trade mark — Application for registration of the figurative mark Nael — Opposition by the proprietor of prior Community word mark Mc Neal — Refusal of registration — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(1)(b) — Determination of the relevant public — Assessment of the comparison of the goods, the similarity of the signs and the likelihood of confusion)

text:
               18.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 136/4

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 4 February 2016 — Emsibeth SpA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case C-251/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Community trade mark - Application for registration of the figurative mark Nael - Opposition by the proprietor of prior Community word mark Mc Neal - Refusal of registration - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(1)(b) - Determination of the relevant public - Assessment of the comparison of the goods, the similarity of the signs and the likelihood of confusion))
   (2016/C 136/05)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Emsibeth SpA (represented by: A. Arpaia, avvocato)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Emsibeth SpA shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.


title: Case C-424/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szekszárdi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 15 September 2014  — Jácint Gábor Balogh v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága

text:
               8.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 439/21

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szekszárdi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 15 September 2014 — Jácint Gábor Balogh v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága
   (Case C-424/14)
   (2014/C 439/27)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Szekszárdi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Jácint Gábor Balogh

      Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the obligation to register laid down in Articles 213(1) and 214(1) of the VAT Directive (1) preclude the national practice in Hungary of mandatorily requiring the registration of individuals — under the threshold for the personal exemption from VAT — who do not wish to pursue an activity subject to VAT?

               2.

               When carrying out an ex post inspection, is the tax authority permitted to penalise the failure to register where the threshold for the personal exemption has not been exceeded?

               3.

               When carrying out an ex post inspection, is the tax authority permitted to be subrogated in the individual’s right of option, and is it permitted to exclude the possibility of the individual opting for the personal exemption in breach of the principle of procedural fairness?

      (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).


title: Case T-493/15 P: Appeal brought on 26 August 2015 by the European Commission against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 June 2015 in Case F-5/14, CX v Commission

text:
               9.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/26

         Appeal brought on 26 August 2015 by the European Commission against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 June 2015 in Case F-5/14, CX v Commission
   (Case T-493/15 P)
   (2015/C 371/29)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by J. Currall and C. Ehrbar, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: CX (Enghien, Belgium)

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 June 2015 in Case F-5/14 CX v Commission;

               —

               refer the case to the Civil Service Tribunal in order that it may rule on the other pleas in law;

               —

               reserve the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, relating to medical opinions produced in the framework of disciplinary proceedings, alleging errors of law due to a failure to take account of (i) the rules on the burden of proof, (ii) Annex IX to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the regulations’), (iii) Article 59 of the regulations and (iv) the powers of the Civil Service Tribunal.

               2.

               Second plea in law, relating to the concept of a body of consistent evidence, alleging a failure to take account of the scope of obligations regarding the collection of evidence and defects in reasoning.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging an error of law in the interpretation of the duty to care, since the Civil Service Tribunal held that, on the basis of the evidence available to it when it adopted the contested decision, the Commission had acted in breach of its duty of care by failing, for the third hearing, to invite the applicant at first instance before it on the ground that, first, the facts subject to the proceedings were relatively old, secondly, that the official was on sick leave and that, third, his lawyer had refused, for a second time, the invitation.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging an error of reasoning as regards the consequences of the infringement of the right to be heard and substantive factual inaccuracy, in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal relied upon substantively inaccurate facts in order to conclude that hearing the applicant at first instance could have had an effect on the contested decision.


title: Case T-207/07 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 10 June 2011 — Eurallumina v Commission (Application for interim measures — State aid — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery — Application for suspension of operation — No urgency)

text:
               6.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/29

         Order of the President of the General Court of 10 June 2011 — Eurallumina v Commission
   (Case T-207/07 R)
   (Application for interim measures - State aid - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - Application for suspension of operation - No urgency)
   2011/C 232/52
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Eurallumina SpA (Portoscuso, Italy) (represented by: L. Martin Alegi and R. Denton, solicitors)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: N. Khan and D. Grespan, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for suspension of operation of Commission Decision 2007/375/EC of 7 February 2007 concerning the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in Gardanne, in the Shannon region and in Sardinia implemented by France, Ireland and Italy respectively (C 78/2001 (ex NN 22/01), C 79/2001 (ex NN 23/01), C 80/2001 (ex NN 26/01)) (OJ 2007 L 147, p. 29), in so far as it concerns the applicant.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.