title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 October 2002 in Case C-81/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation): Borie Manoux SARL v Directeur de l'Institut national de la propriété industrielle (INPI) (Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Wine — Description and presentation of wines — Quality wines produced in specific regions — Brand name printed on label — Restrictions — Articles 11 and 40 of Regulation No 2392/89)

text:
21.12.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 323/19
and J.N. Cuhna Rodrigues, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,                   Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), President
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment                 of the Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. La Pergola, P. Jann
on 24 October 2002, in which it:                                            and S. von Bahr, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass,
                                                                            Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 November 2002, in
                                                                            which it:
1.    Declares that, by failing to specify the circumstances in which
      the workers concerned are to be provided with special corrective
      appliances appropriate for the work concerned, the Italian            1.    Dismisses the appeals;
      Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9(3)
      of Council Directive 90/270/EEC of 29 May 1990 on the                 2.    Orders Glencore Grain Ltd to pay the costs in Case C-24/01 P
      minimum safety and health requirements for work with display                and Compagnie Continentale (France) SA to pay the costs in
      screen equipment (fifth individual Directive within the meaning             Case C-25/01 P.
      of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC);
2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                         (1 ) OJ C 108 of 7.4.2001.
( 1) OJ C 79 of 10.3.2001.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Second Chamber)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 24 October 2002
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                            in Case C-81/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                        of 7 November 2002                                  the Cour de cassation): Borie Manoux SARL v Directeur
                                                                             de l’Institut national de la propriété industrielle (INPI) (1)
In Joined Cases C-24/01 P and C-25/01 P: Glencore Grain
       Ltd and Compagnie Continentale (France) SA (1)                       (Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets —
                                                                            Wine — Description and presentation of wines — Quality
                                                                            wines produced in specific regions — Brand name printed on
(Appeal — Emergency aid provided by the Community to                        label — Restrictions — Articles 11 and 40 of Regulation
the States of the former Soviet Union — Invitation to tender                                            No 2392/89)
          — Free competition — Hearing of witnesses)
                                                                                (2002/C 323/24)
                           (2002/C 323/23)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                         in the European Court Reports)
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            In Case C-81/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
In Joined Cases C-24/01 P and C-25/01 P, Glencore Grain Ltd,                by the Cour de cassation (France) for a preliminary ruling in
formerly Richco Commodities Ltd, established in Hamilton                    the proceedings pending before that court between Borie
(Bermudes) (Agents: P. Bos and J. van Zuuren), Compagnie                    Manoux SARL and Directeur de l’Institut national de la
Continentale (France) SA, established in Labège (France)                    propriété industrielle (INPI), on the interpretation of Article 40
(Agents: P. Bos and P. Chabrier): Two Appeals against the                   of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2392/89 of 24 July 1989
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European                     laying down general rules for the description and presentation
Communities (Second Chamber) of 8 November 2000 in                          of wines and grape musts (OJ 1989 L 232, p. 13), as amended
Joined Cases T-485/93, T-491/93, T-494/93 and T-61/98                       by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3897/91 of 16 December
Dreyfus and Others v Commission [2000] ECR II-3659,                         1991 (OJ 1991 L 368, p. 5), the Court (Second Chamber),
seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other parties                  composed of: R. Schintgen, President of the Chamber, V. Skou-
to the proceedings being: Commission of the European                        ris and N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed,
Communities (Agents: M.-J. Jonczy and T. van Rijn), Louis                   Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
Dreyfus & Cie SA, established in Paris (France), the Court (Fifth           on 24 October 2002, in which it has ruled:
 ---pagebreak--- C 323/20                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        21.12.2002
Article 40 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2392/89 of 24 July                1.    Dismisses the appeal;
1989 laying down general rules for the description and presentation
of wines and grape musts, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC)            2.    Orders Aéroports de Paris to pay the costs.
No 3897/91 of 16 December 1991, is to be interpreted as not
prohibiting the use of a trade mark which contains a geographical           (1 ) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.
reference and is intended for use in connection with the sale of wine
and is likely to give the false impression that the geographical
reference is protected, unless there is a real risk that use of such a
mark will mislead consumers and, as a result, alter their economic
behaviour. It is a matter for the national court to determine whether
or not that is the case.                                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
( 1) OJ C 108 of 7.4.2001.
                                                                                of 24 October 2002
                                                                            in Case C-99/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                            the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Gottfried Linhart v Hans
                                                                                Biffl ( 1)
                                                                            (Approximation of laws — Articles 30 and 36 of the EC
                                                                            Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 28 EC and 30 EC)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                            — Directive 76/768/EEC relating to cosmetic products —
                                                                            Directive 84/450/EEC concerning misleading advertising —
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                   National legislation laying down restrictions on advertising)
                                                                                (2002/C 323/26)
                         of 24 October 2002
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
in Case C-82/01 P: Aéroports de Paris v Commission of
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                  the European Communities (1)
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Appeal — Competition — Air transport — Airport man-
agement — Abuse of dominant position — Discriminatory                       In Case C-99/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
                                 fees)                                      by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary
                                                                            ruling in the proceedings pending before that court against
                                                                            Gottfried Linhart and Hans Biffl, on the interpretation of
                           (2002/C 323/25)                                  Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
                                                                            Articles 28 EC and 30 EC) and Council Directive 76/768/EEC
                                                                            of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the
                     (Language of the case: French)                         Member States relating to cosmetic products (OJ 1976 L 262,
                                                                            p. 169), as amended by Council Directive 93/35/EEC of
                                                                            14 June 1993 (OJ 1993 L 151, p. 32), and Council Directive
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                            84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 relating to the approxi-
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            mation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
                                                                            of the Member States concerning misleading advertising (OJ
                                                                            1984 L 250, p. 17), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
                                                                            J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen,
In Case C-82/01 P, Aéroports de Paris (Agent: H. Calvet):                   V. Skouris, F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur),
Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of               Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,
the European Communities (Third Chamber) of 12 December                     has given a judgment on 24 October 2002, in which it has
2000 in Case T-128/98 Aéroports de Paris v Commission                       ruled:
[2000] ECR II-3929, seeking to have that judgment set aside,
the other parties to the proceedings being: Commission of the               1.    Article 6(3) of Council Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July
European Communities (Agent: L. Pignataro, assisted by                            1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States
B. Geneste) and Alpha Flight Services SAS (Agents: L. Marville                    relating to cosmetic products, as amended by Council Directive
and A. Denants), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:                          93/35/EEC of 14 June 1993, precludes national legislation
C. Gulmann, acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber,                        which prohibits reference to expert medical opinions in the
V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues                       marketing of cosmetic products — in particular, the use of the
(Rapporteur), Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass,                      statement ‘dermatologically tested’ — if that reference does not
Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 October 2002, in which                      include information relating to the contents and outcome of
it:                                                                               those assessments.


title: Case T-469/07: Action brought on 21 December 2007 — Philips Lighting Poland and Philips Lighting v Council

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/53

         Action brought on 21 December 2007 — Philips Lighting Poland and Philips Lighting v Council
   (Case T-469/07)
   (2008/C 51/97)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: Philips Lighting Poland S.A. (Pila, Poland) and Philips Lighting BV (Eindhoven, Netherlands) (represented by: M. L. Catrain González, lawyer, and E. Wright, Barrister)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested regulation in its entirety or in so far as it affects the applicants;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants, who are producers of integrated fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) in the Community, seek the annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1205/2007 of 15 October 2007 imposing anti-dumping duties on imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) originating in the People's Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 and extending to imports of the same product consigned from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Republic of the Philippines (1).
   In support of their application, the applicants submit that the Council violated Articles 3(1), 9(4) and 11(2) of the Basic Regulation (2) by imposing anti-dumping duties where it has not been demonstrated that the expiry of the measures would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of injury to the Community industry.
   The applicants further allege that the Council committed an error of law in relying on Article 9(1) of the Basic Regulation in a situation that does not fall within the scope of that article, as the complaint leading to the investigation had not been withdrawn.
   Finally, the applicants invoke a violation of Article 253 EC in that the contested regulation is inadequately reasoned in respect of the level of support from Community producers and the conclusion on Community interest.

      (1)  OJ 2007 L 272, p. 1.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1).


title: Case C-86/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from VAT and Duties Tribunal, Manchester (United Kingdom) made on 27 February 2009 — Future Health Technologies Ltd v Her Majesty's Commissioners of Revenue and Customs

text:
               1.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/16

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from VAT and Duties Tribunal, Manchester (United Kingdom) made on 27 February 2009 — Future Health Technologies Ltd v Her Majesty's Commissioners of Revenue and Customs
   (Case C-86/09)
   2009/C 102/27
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   VAT and Duties Tribunal, Manchester

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Future Health Technologies Ltd

      Defendant: Her Majesty's Commissioners of Revenue and Customs

      Questions referred

               1.

               In circumstances where a Member State accepts that services are carried out by an establishment falling to be treated as a duly recognised establishment of a similar nature to a hospital or a centre for medical treatment or diagnosis within Article 132.1(b) of the Principal VAT Directive (1), is the expression ‘hospital and medical care’ in Article 132.1(b) to be interpreted as including the aggregate of or, alternatively, one or more of (and if so which) services of the following descriptions (as more fully described in the Agreed Statement of Facts):

                           a)

                           The provision to the parents of an unborn child of a kit of the necessary medical equipment to enable an independent medical professional attending the birth to collect blood from the umbilical cord of the child shortly after birth;

                           b)

                           The testing of the blood thereby collected at a purpose-built facility for the purpose of ensuring that it is not contaminated with any medical condition that could be transmitted via the blood or via an extract of stem cells from the blood in the event of the therapeutic use of the stem cells (with similar testing occurring again after 6 months)

                           c)

                           The processing of the said blood by and under the supervision of suitably-qualified medical professionals to extract a sample of stem cells suitable for therapeutic medical use;

                           d)

                           The storing of the blood and stem cells in scientifically controlled conditions designed to maintain and preserve the blood and stem cells in perfect condition; and/or

                           e)

                           The releasing of the blood on request of the parents (until the child is 18 years old) for use in medical treatment?

               2.

               Alternatively, should the concept of activities that are ‘closely related’ to hospital and medical care in Article 132.1(b) of the Principal VAT Directive be interpreted so as to include all or any (and if so which) of the above services?

               3.

               In circumstances where a Member State accepts that the said services are carried out by or under the supervision of one or more suitably-qualified medical professionals, is the expression ‘the provision of medical care’ in Article 132.1(c) of the Principal VAT Directive to be interpreted as including the aggregate of or, alternatively, one or more of (and if so which) services of the following descriptions (as more fully described in the Agreed Statement of Facts):

                           f)

                           The provision to the parents of an unborn child of a kit of the necessary medical equipment to enable an independent medical professional attending the birth to collect blood from the umbilical cord of the child shortly after birth;

                           g)

                           The testing of the blood thereby collected at a purpose-built facility for the purpose of ensuring that it is not contaminated with any medical condition that could be transmitted via the blood or via an extract of stem cells from the blood in the event of the therapeutic use of the stem cells (with similar testing occurring again after 6 months)

                           h)

                           The processing of the said blood by and under the supervision of suitably-qualified medical professionals to extract a sample of stem cells suitable for therapeutic medical use;

                           i)

                           The storing of the blood and stem cells in scientifically controlled conditions designed to maintain and preserve the blood and stem cells in perfect condition; and/or

                           j)

                           The releasing of the blood on request of the parents (until the child is 18 years old) for use in medical treatment?

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


title: Case F-31/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 11 December 2014  — Colart and Others v Parliament (Civil Service — Staff representation — Staff committee — Staff Committee elections — Rules on staff representation at the European Parliament — Competence of the Committee of Tellers — Complaints procedure before the Committee of Tellers — Publication of the election results — Complaint brought before the Committee of Tellers — Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations — No prior complaint before the appointing authority — Matter referred directly to the Tribunal — Inadmissibilty)

text:
               2.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 34/48

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 11 December 2014 — Colart and Others v Parliament
   (Case F-31/14) (1)

   ((Civil Service - Staff representation - Staff committee - Staff Committee elections - Rules on staff representation at the European Parliament - Competence of the Committee of Tellers - Complaints procedure before the Committee of Tellers - Publication of the election results - Complaint brought before the Committee of Tellers - Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations - No prior complaint before the appointing authority - Matter referred directly to the Tribunal - Inadmissibilty))
   (2015/C 034/57)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Philippe Colart (Bastogne, Belgium) and Others (represented by: A. Salerno, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: O. Caisou-Rousseau and S. Alves, Agents)

      Re:

   Application to annul the elections for the Staff Committee of the European Parliament which were held in autumn 2013 and the results of which were published on 28 November 2013.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

               2.

               Declares that Mr Colart and the other applicants whose names are set out in the annex are to bear half of their own costs;

               3.

               Declares that the European Parliament is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay half of the costs incurred by the applicants.

      (1)  OJ C 184, 16.6.2014, p. 45.


title: Case T-645/16 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 6 February 2017 — Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank v SRB (Interim measures — Single Resolution Board — Single Resolution Fund — Ex-ante contributions — Application for stay of execution — No urgency)

text:
               10.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/38

         Order of the President of the General Court of 6 February 2017 — Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank v SRB
   (Case T-645/16 R)
   ((Interim measures - Single Resolution Board - Single Resolution Fund - Ex-ante contributions - Application for stay of execution - No urgency))
   (2017/C 112/53)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank (Bregenz, Austria) (represented by: G. Eisenberger, lawyer)

      Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB) (represented by: B. Meyring and S. Schelo, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application on the basis of Article 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU seeking the grant of interim measures as regards, firstly, a stay of execution of the decision of the Executive Session of the SRB (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/06) of 15 April 2016 concerning the ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund for 2016 and, secondly, an order that the SRB reimburse the ex-ante contributions paid by the applicant.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is rejected.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case C-140/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova (Italy) lodged on 17 April 2009 — Fallimento Traghetti del Mediterraneo SpA — Curatore dott. Alberto Fontana v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/24

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova (Italy) lodged on 17 April 2009 — Fallimento Traghetti del Mediterraneo SpA — Curatore dott. Alberto Fontana v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri
   (Case C-140/09)
   2009/C 153/44
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Genova

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Fallimento Traghetti del Mediterraneo SpA — Curatore dott. Alberto Fontana

      Defendant: Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

      Question referred

   Is national legislation on State aid of the kind laid down in Law No 684/1974, in particular in Article 19 thereof, which provides for the possibility of the payment of State aid — albeit only on account — in the absence of agreements and without the prior establishment of precise and stringent criteria capable of ensuring that payment of the aid cannot give rise to distortion of competition, compatible with the principles of Community law and, in particular, with the provisions laid down in Articles 86 EC, 87 EC and 88 EC and in Title V (formerly Title IV) of the Treaty and, in that regard, may importance be attached to the fact that the beneficiary is required to apply tariffs imposed by the administrative authority?


title: Case T-34/10: Action brought on 26 January 2010 — Hairdreams v OHIM — Bartmann (MAGIC LIGHT)

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/46

         Action brought on 26 January 2010 — Hairdreams v OHIM — Bartmann (MAGIC LIGHT)
   (Case T-34/10)
   2010/C 100/71
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant:‘Hairdreams’ HaarhandelsgmbH (Graz, Austria) (represented by: G. Kresbach, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Rüdiger Bartmann (Gladbeck, Germany)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Amend the contested decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 November 2009 in Case R 656/2008-4 so that the applicant’s appeal of 22 April 2008 is upheld in its entirety and that the defendant is ordered to pay the costs of the opposition proceedings, the appeal and the present action;

               —

               in the alternative, annul the contested decision and refer it back to OHIM.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Hairdreams HaarhandelsgmbH

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘MAGIC LIGHT’ for goods in Classes 3, 8, 10, 21, 22, 26 and 44 (Application No 5 196 597)

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Rüdiger Bartmann

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the German word mark ‘MAGIC LIFE’ No 30 415 611 for goods in Class 3

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (1) on the ground that the Board of Appeal erred in law in its assessment of the likelihood of confusion

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).


title: Case T-707/16: Action brought on 3 October 2016 — Enoitalia v EUIPO — La Rural Viñedos y Bodegas (ANTONIO RUBINI)

text:
               14.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 419/57

         Action brought on 3 October 2016 — Enoitalia v EUIPO — La Rural Viñedos y Bodegas (ANTONIO RUBINI)
   (Case T-707/16)
   (2016/C 419/74)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Enoitalia, Corte Vigna, Baldo, Belvino, Ca' del Lago, Invino, Vinuva, Cantine Borsari, Ca' Montini, E.I., Enoi, V.E.B., Cbe, Ca.Pi SpA (Enoitalia SpA) (Calmasino di Bardolino, Italy) (represented by: S. Rizzo, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: La Rural Viñedos y Bodegas SA Ltda (Capital Federal, Argentina)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘ANTONIO RUBINI’ — EU trade mark No 9 526 955

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 June 2016 in Case R 1085/2015-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 53(1)(a) read in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-644/15 P: Appeal brought on 2 December 2015 by Hungary. against the judgment delivered on 15 September 2015 in Case T-346/12 Hungary v European Commission

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/28

         Appeal brought on 2 December 2015 by Hungary. against the judgment delivered on 15 September 2015 in Case T-346/12 Hungary v European Commission
   (Case C-644/15 P)
   (2016/C 027/32)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Parties

      Appellant: Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the judgment of the General Court in Case T-346/12;

               —

               Decide the case on the basis of the possibility provided by Article 61 of the Statute;

               —

               Order the Commission to bear the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Hungarian Government submits that the General Court misapplied the law in holding that, in its decision on the partial reimbursement of national financial assistance granted — on the basis of Article 103e of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 (1) — to producers’ organisations operating in the fruit and vegetable sector, the Commission had a legal basis for making the amount repaid by the European Union subject to the amount of assistance notified.
   The Hungarian Government submits that, on the basis of the interpretation of the relevant provisions of Regulation No 1234/2007/EC in conjunction with Regulation No 1580/2007/EC, (2) the Commission was not entitled to agree to reimburse only those amounts which were indicated by the Hungarian Government in its application for the grant of national assistance, where they are given as estimated, expected or provisional amounts, in its decision on the partial reimbursement of national financial assistance granted to producers’ organisations operating in the fruit and vegetable sector.
   Under Article 103e of Regulation No 1234/2007/EC the authorisation of the Commission for national assistance concerns the grant of assistance but not the establishment of an upper limit by the Commission for the amount of assistance which may be granted. Such an upper limit is provided for unequivocally by Regulation No 1234/2007, which provides that national assistance may not exceed 80 % of financial contributions to operational funds of members or producers’ organisations. Nor do the rules on partial reimbursement of Community assistance allow the Commission, when granting the partial reimbursement of assistance, to establish as the upper limit for reimbursement the amount which the Member State indicated to the Commission in its application for authorisation, either as the total amount of the assistance, or as the amount of assistance scheduled for certain producers’ organisations.
   The use of the term ‘amount’ in the wording of the second paragraph of Article 94(1) of Regulation No 1580/2007 — having regard to the 80 % limit on assistance in Article 103e of Regulation No 1234/2007 together with the limit of 25 % for the amount of the operational fund referred to in Article 67 of Regulation No 1580/2007 — is intended to ensure that the Commission, when granting authorisation, is able to calculate in advance the amount of national assistance which might be paid, and thus the potential amount of any reimbursement. Thus, the purpose of the notification of amounts is in no way the approval of the notified amounts, but is to make clear to the Commission the extent of the assistance which potentially might be paid under the rules in the basic regulation and the Commission regulation.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (OJ 2007 L 299, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules of Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (OJ 2007 L 299, p. 1).


title: Case C-411/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 22 September 2008 — Swiss Caps AG v Hauptzollamt Singen

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 22 September 2008 — Swiss Caps AG v Hauptzollamt Singen
   (Case C-411/08)
   (2008/C 327/18)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Swiss Caps AG

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Singen
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is Rule 5 of the General Rules for the Interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature (Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 — Combined Nomenclature (CN)) (1) to be interpreted as meaning that capsule casings which consist of granulated starch and contain substances for supplementing the diet are to be regarded as packing material?

               2.

               If the reply to the first question is in the negative:
               Is heading 1515 of the Combined Nomenclature to be interpreted as meaning that granulated starch capsule casings containing 580 mg of concentrated wheat-germ oil determine the character of the goods in such a way that the goods are excluded from heading 1515 of the Combined Nomenclature?

      (1)  OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1.


title: Case F-133/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 10 June 2016 — HI v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Article 11 of the Staff Regulations — Duty of loyalty — Article 11a — Conflict of interests — Official responsible for monitoring a project funded by the European Union — Family link between that official and an employee recruited for the purposes of the project by the company responsible for that project — Disciplinary procedure — Disciplinary action — Downgrading — Lawfulness of the composition of the Disciplinary Board — Obligation to state reasons — Length of the procedure — Reasonable time — Infringement of the rights of the defence — Principle of ne bis in idem — Manifest error of assessment — Proportionality of the penalty — Mitigating circumstances)

text:
               25.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/69

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 10 June 2016 — HI v Commission
   (Case F-133/15) (1)

   ((Civil service - Officials - Article 11 of the Staff Regulations - Duty of loyalty - Article 11a - Conflict of interests - Official responsible for monitoring a project funded by the European Union - Family link between that official and an employee recruited for the purposes of the project by the company responsible for that project - Disciplinary procedure - Disciplinary action - Downgrading - Lawfulness of the composition of the Disciplinary Board - Obligation to state reasons - Length of the procedure - Reasonable time - Infringement of the rights of the defence - Principle of ne bis in idem - Manifest error of assessment - Proportionality of the penalty - Mitigating circumstances))
   (2016/C 270/76)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: HI (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Ehrbar and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision to impose on the applicant, following an investigation concerning a conflict of interest, a penalty of permanent downgrading by two grades, and for compensation for the non-material damage which the applicant claims to have suffered.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders HI to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 414, 14.12.2015, p. 45.


title: Case T-53/00: Action brought on 9 March 2000 by Serena Angioli against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 135/24               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      13.5.2000
The applicant also submits that the statement of reasons is              In support of her claims, she pleads:
defective and that no investigation was carried out, in so far as
the contested letter bases its statement that there was no abuse         — infringement of the general principle of equal treatment,
of a dominant position by Ancona Merci on the fact that quay                 and of Article 30 of the Staff Regulations and of Annex III
No 25 does not form part of an essential infrastructure within               thereto, in so far as, in the competition in question, there
the meaning of the case-law of the Court of Justice.                         was a second series of written tests for five new candidates.
                                                                             In addition, that competition was open to all members of
                                                                             temporary staff, whether remunerated from the appropri-
(1) OJ L 354 of 30.12.1998, p. 12.                                           ation for ‘research’ or from the appropriation for ‘adminis-
                                                                             tration’. A procedure in respect of appointment as estab-
                                                                             lished officials cannot be organised in the same way for
                                                                             staff under different budgetary terms.
                                                                         — infringement of the fifth paragraph of Article 5 of Annex
                                                                             III to the Staff Regulations and of the principles of having
                                                                             regard for the welfare of officials and of sound management
                                                                             and fair administration, and disregard for the interest of
Action brought on 9 March 2000 by Serena Angioli                             the service. The applicant claims, on that point, that
  against the Commission of the European Communities                         the competition jury selected a number of successful
                                                                             candidates which was lower than the number of posts
                                                                             available and that, in the present case, the jury did not
                         (Case T-53/00)                                      comply with the objective pursued by a recruitment
                                                                             procedure in respect of appointment as established
                        (2000/C 135/43)                                      officials: the appointment as established officials of persons
                                                                             such as to enable the institution to carry out its tasks.
                   (Language of the case: French)                        The applicant also cites the breach of the obligation to state
                                                                         reasons and the existence of a manifest error of assessment.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 9 March 2000 by Serena Angioli,
residing at Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersanden and
Laure Levi, of the Brussels Bar.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the decision of the jury for the internal competition            Action brought on 11 March 2000 by Federación de
    concerning the appointment as established officials of               Cofradı́as de Pescadores de Guipúzcoa, Federación de
    members of the temporary staff in category COM/TA/2/98               Cofradı́as de Pescadores de Vizcaya, Federación de Cofrad-
    not to include the applicant on the list of suitable                 ias de Peseadores de Cantabria and Others v Council of
    candidates;                                                                                the European Union
— annul all the other subsequent acts adopted by the                                              (Case T-54/00)
    abovementioned competition jury and by the appointing
    authority;
                                                                                (2000/C 135/44)
— in so far as is necessary, annul the decision of the
    appointing authority to reject the applicant’s complaint, a
    decision of 1 December 1999, notified on 7 December
    1999;                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
— order the defendant to pay the costs.                                  An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                         brought before the Court of First Instance on 11 March 2000
                                                                         by Federación de Cofradı́as de Pescadores de Guipuzcoa,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Federación de Cofradı́as de Pescadores de Vizcaya, Federación
                                                                         de Cofradias de Pescadores de Cantabria and Others, which are
                                                                         registered in San Sebastifin, Bilbao and Santander, respectively,
The applicant contests her exclusion from the list of suitable           represented by Ramón Garcia-Gallardo and Marı́a Dolores
candidates drawn up following her participation in the tests             Domingues Pérez, of the Madrid and La Coruña Bars, respect-
for Competition COM/TA/99.                                               ively, with offices at 19 Square de Meeûs, Brussels.


title: Case C-483/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 6 September 2016 — Zsolt Sziber v ERSTE Bank Hungary Zrt.

text:
               14.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 419/32

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 6 September 2016 — Zsolt Sziber v ERSTE Bank Hungary Zrt.
   (Case C-483/16)
   (2016/C 419/43)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Fővárosi Törvényszék

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Zsolt Sziber

      Defendant: ERSTE Bank Hungary Zrt.

      Other party to the proceedings: Mónika Szeder

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the following provisions of EU law, namely, Article 129a (1) and (2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community (Treaty of Rome), read in the light of Article 129a (3) of that treaty; Article 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ 2012 C 326, p. 2); Article 7(1) and (2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, (1) read in the light of Article 8 of that directive and recital 47 of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC, (2) be interpreted as precluding rules of national law (and their application) which impose additional requirements prejudicial to a party to proceedings, whether applicant or defendant, that, between 1 May 2004 and 26 July 2014, entered into a credit agreement, in the capacity of a consumer, containing an unfair contractual term which allows a unilateral increase in interest rates, costs or commissions or containing a bid-offer spread, on the basis that under those additional requirements, in order for the rights arising from the invalidity of those contracts concluded with consumers to be upheld before the courts and, in particular, in order for the court to be able to examine the substance of a case, a civil litigation document must be presented (primarily a claim, an amendment of a claim or a plea of invalidity relied on by way of defence — contesting the order against the consumer — an amendment of that plea, a counterclaim by the defendant or an amendment of that counterclaim) and it must comply with mandatory content requirements, whereas a party to proceedings that has not entered into a credit agreement, in the capacity of a consumer, or that entered into a credit agreement of a different nature to that described above, between 1 May 2004 and 26 July 2014, in the capacity of a consumer, is not required to present such a document complying with mandatory content requirements?

               2.

               Regardless of whether the Court of Justice answers Question 1, which is formulated in more general terms than this second question, in the affirmative or the negative, must the provisions of EU law listed in Question 1 be interpreted as precluding the following obligatory additional requirements [(a) to (c)] from applying to a party to proceedings that has entered into a credit agreement, in the capacity of a consumer, as referred to in Question 1:

                           (a)

                           in judicial proceedings, a claim, an amendment of a claim or a plea of invalidity relied on by way of defence — contesting the order against the consumer — an amendment of that plea, a counterclaim by the defendant or an amendment of that counterclaim which must be presented by a party to proceedings, whether applicant or defendant, that has entered into a credit agreement, in the capacity of a consumer, as referred to in Question 1, is only admissible — that is to say, will only be examined as to its substance — where, in that document, the party does not only request the court to declare wholly or partially invalid the credit agreement entered into with consumers as referred to in Question 1, but also requests the court to apply the legal consequences associated with the total invalidity of the contract, whereas a party to proceedings that has not entered into a credit agreement, in the capacity of a consumer, or that entered into a credit agreement of a different nature to that described above, between 1 May 2004 and 26 July 2014, in the capacity of a consumer, is not required to present such a document complying with mandatory content requirements?

                           (b)

                           in judicial proceedings, a claim, an amendment of a claim or a plea of invalidity relied on by way of defence — contesting the order against the consumer — an amendment of that plea, a counterclaim by the defendant or an amendment of that counterclaim which must be presented by a party to proceedings, whether applicant or defendant, that has entered into a credit agreement, in the capacity of a consumer, as referred to in Question 1, is only admissible — that is to say, will only be examined as to its substance — where, in that document, whilst requesting the court to declare the total invalidity of the credit agreement entered into with consumers, as referred to in Question 1, no request is made, in the context of legal consequences associated with total invalidity, for legal restoration of the situation prior to the conclusion of the credit agreement, whereas a party to proceedings that has not entered into a credit agreement, in the capacity of a consumer, or that entered into a credit agreement of a different nature to that described above, between 1 May 2004 and 26 July 2014, in the capacity of a consumer, is not required to present such a document complying with mandatory content requirements?

                           (c)

                           in judicial proceedings, a claim, an amendment of a claim or a plea of invalidity relied on by way of defence — contesting the order against the consumer — an amendment of that plea, a counterclaim by the defendant or an amendment of that counterclaim which must be presented by a party to proceedings, whether applicant or defendant, that has entered into a credit agreement, in the capacity of a consumer, as referred to in Question 1, is only admissible — that is to say, will only be examined as to its substance — where that document includes, in relation to the period from the start of the contractual legal relationship to the date the court is seised, a settlement calculation carried out using an extremely complex mathematical methodology (as prescribed by national provisions) which must also take into account the rules regulating currency conversion into forints, as well as including a detailed breakdown represented in a mathematically verifiable way; indicating the payments due under the credit agreement, payments made by the applicant, the payments due leaving aside the void clause, and the difference between those figures; and specifying the grand total that the party that entered into the credit agreement, in the capacity of a consumer, as referred to in Question 1, still owes the credit institution or paid in excess, whereas a party to proceedings that has not entered into a credit agreement, in the capacity of a consumer, or that entered into a credit agreement of a different nature to that described above, between 1 May 2004 and 26 July 2014, in the capacity of a consumer, is not required to present such a document complying with mandatory content requirements?

               3.

               Must the provisions of EU law listed in Question 1 be interpreted as meaning that infringement of those rules by means of the imposition of the additional requirements listed in Questions 1 and 2 also constitutes an infringement of Articles 20, 21 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ 2012 C 326, p. 2), taking into account (here and also partly with regard to Questions 1 and 2) that the courts of the Member States must apply EU law in the field of consumer protection even in cases which do not contain any cross-border elements, that is to say, in purely domestic situations, in accordance with the judgments of the Court of Justice of 5 December 2000, Guimont, C-448/98, EU:C:2000:663, paragraph 23, 10 May 2012, Duomo Gpa and Others, C-357/10 to C-359/10, EU:C:2012:283, paragraph 28, and the order of 3 July 2014, Tudoran, C-92/14, EU:C:2014:2051, paragraph 39? Or should the situation be regarded as a cross-border situation merely because the credit agreements referred to in Question 1 are ‘foreign currency based credit agreements’?

      (1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).

      (2)  Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66).


title: Case C-519/07 P: Appeal brought on 22 November 2007 by Commission of the European Communities against the judgment delivered on 12 September 2007 by the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) in Case T-348/03 Koninklijke Friesland Foods NV (formerly Friesland Coberco Dairy Foods Holding NV) v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               9.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/9

         Appeal brought on 22 November 2007 by Commission of the European Communities against the judgment delivered on 12 September 2007 by the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) in Case T-348/03 Koninklijke Friesland Foods NV (formerly Friesland Coberco Dairy Foods Holding NV) v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-519/07 P)
   (2008/C 37/11)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. van Vliet and S. Noë)

      Other party to the proceedings: Koninklijke Friesland Foods NV (formerly Friesland Coberco Dairy Foods Holding NV)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment under appeal, dismiss the action for annulment of the decision (1) and order Koninklijke Friesland Foods NV (KFF) to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance and of the present appeal;

               —

               in the alternative, set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as it grants rights to operators in the market — other than Koninklijke Friesland Foods NV — who, as at 11 July 2001, had lodged a request with the Netherlands tax authority for application of the aid scheme in question, and dismiss the action for annulment of the decision in so far as it relates to the grant of rights to operators in the market — other than KFF — who, as at 11 July 2001, had lodged a request for application of the aid scheme in question.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission takes the view that the Court of First Instance has infringed Community law:

               (i)

               by concluding that KFF has a legal interest in bringing proceedings because, if its action were to succeed, it would have certain claims against the Netherlands authorities in respect of the GFA scheme (judgment under appeal, paragraphs 58 to 73);

               (ii)

               by concluding that KFF is directly and individually concerned by the decision (judgment under appeal, paragraphs 93 to 101);

               (iii)

               by annulling the decision on the basis of facts which were not, and could not have been, known to the Commission when it took its decision, namely KFF's actual circumstances (judgment under appeal, in particular, paragraphs 141 to 143);

               (iv)

               Part 1: by manifestly incorrectly regarding as undisputed — and thus proven — a matter of crucial importance for the Court's reasoning (erroneously proceeding on the basis that the Commission did not dispute that the applicant had taken accounting measures and financial and economic decisions which could not have been amended within a period of fifteen months) (judgment under appeal, paragraph 137);
               Part 2: by concluding that an undertaking which has merely lodged a request to be able to benefit from the aid scheme can have legitimate expectations (judgment under appeal, in particular, paragraphs 125 to 140);

               (v)

               by concluding that KFF is entitled to rely on the principle of equal treatment (judgment under appeal, paragraphs 149 and 150);

               (vi)

               in the alternative: the Court should set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as it grants rights to operators in the market other than KFF (judgment under appeal, operative part, point 1).

      (1)  Commission Decision 2003/515/EC of 17 February 2003 on the State aid implemented by the Netherlands for international financing activities (OJ 2003 L 180, p. 52).


title: Case T-128/08 and Case T-241/08: Order of the General Court of 5 May 2010 — CBI and ABISP v Commission (State aid — Subsidies granted to public hospitals by the Belgian authorities — Service of general economic interest — Complaint — Alleged decision to take no further action on the complaint — Subsequent adoption of a decision declaring the aid to be compatible with the common market — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               17.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/17

         Order of the General Court of 5 May 2010 — CBI and ABISP v Commission
   (Case T-128/08 and Case T-241/08) (1)

   (State aid - Subsidies granted to public hospitals by the Belgian authorities - Service of general economic interest - Complaint - Alleged decision to take no further action on the complaint - Subsequent adoption of a decision declaring the aid to be compatible with the common market - No need to adjudicate)
   2010/C 195/27
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Coordination bruxelloise d’institutions sociales et de santé (CBI) (Brussels, Belgium); and Association bruxelloise des institutions de soins privées (ABISP) (Brussels) (represented by: D. Waelbroeck, lawyer, and D. Slater, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito, J.-P. Keppenne and B. Stromsky, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of an alleged Commission decision, resulting from its letters of 10 January and 10 April 2008, not to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 88(2) EC and to take no further action on the applicants’ complaint concerning alleged State aid granted by the Belgian authorities in connection with the financing of public hospitals of the IRIS network (Interhospitalière régionale des infrastructures de soins) in the Brussels-Capital Region (Belgium).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Case T-128/08 and Case T-241/08 shall be joined for the purposes of this order.

               2.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on these actions.

               3.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene submitted by Commune de Saint-Gilles (Belgium), Commune d’Etterbeek (Belgium), Commune d’Ixelles (Belgium), Commune d’Anderlecht (Belgium), Brussels-Capital Region (Belgium), City of Brussels (Belgium), or the Republic of Finland.

               4.

               The European Commission shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 142, 7.6.2008.


title: Case T-166/07: Action brought on 18 May 2007 — Italian Republic v Commission

text:
               7.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/39

         Action brought on 18 May 2007 — Italian Republic v Commission
   (Case T-166/07)
   (2007/C 155/71)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: Paolo Gentili, Avvocato dello Stato)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Notice of Open Competition EPSO/AD/94/07 for the drawing up of a reserve list for the recruitment of 125 Administrators (AD5) in the field of information, communication and the media;

               —

               annul Notice of Open Competition EPSO/AST/37/07 for the drawing up of a reserve list for the recruitment of 110 Assistants (AST3) in the field of communication and information.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-156/03 Spain v Commission.


title: Case C-215/12 P: Appeal brought on 9 May 2012 by Grazer Wechselseitige Versicherung AG against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 28 February 2012 in Case T-282/08 Grazer Wechselseitige Versicherung AG v European Commission

text:
               23.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/7

         Appeal brought on 9 May 2012 by Grazer Wechselseitige Versicherung AG against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 28 February 2012 in Case T-282/08 Grazer Wechselseitige Versicherung AG v European Commission
   (Case C-215/12 P)
   2012/C 184/13
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Grazer Wechselseitige Versicherung AG (represented by: H. Wollmann, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               1.

               Set aside the judgment under appeal;

               2.

               give final judgment itself in the matter and annul Commission Decision 2008/719/EC of 30 April 2008 on State aid C 56/06 (ex NN 77/06) implemented by Austria for the privatisation of Bank Burgenland (OJ 2008 L 239, p. 32) and order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice;

               3.

               in the alternative to the claim at point 2 above, refer the case back to the General Court and reserve costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present appeal has been brought against the judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2012 in Case T-282/08 Bank Burgenland. The appellant challenges the General Court’s decision in its entirety. According to the appellant, the judgment under appeal is vitiated by procedural errors as a result of which the appellant’s interests were prejudiced. Moreover, the General Court infringed European Union law (‘EU law’) in several respects in its decision. The appellant submits the following grounds of appeal.
   By its first ground of appeal, Grazer Wechselseitige Versicherung AG complains of an infringement of EU law. The General Court takes the view that the Land Burgenland ought not to have taken account in the privatisation process of the Ausfallhaftung (deficiency liability) of the Land Burgenland for Bank Burgenland’s existing liabilities. Those considerations are wrong in law. The General Court misapplied the standard of a private-sector investor. The General Court fails to recognise that the deficiency liability of the Land Burgenland is an obligation assumed by the Land in its capacity as owner of the bank. In accordance with the case-law of the Court of Justice and the General Court’s practice in other cases, such as Ryanair, (1) a liability assumed by a Member State in connection with an economic activity must be taken into account in the application of the private investor test. Furthermore the General Court’s interpretation is incompatible with the practical effect of Community State aid rules. The principle postulated by the General Court that EU Member States may not ensure in relation to the privatisation of banks that the purchaser releases the Member State from existing State guarantees is likely to create significant obstacles to the task of overcoming the current financial and public debt crisis in Europe.
   By its second ground of appeal, the appellant complains that the judgment under appeal is vitiated by a procedural error in so far as the General Court did not produce its own considerations in respect of an essential plea in law but made a blanket reference to the Commission’s assertions. The Commission’s assessment that the (alleged) defects in the conditions of the Land’s tender procedure had no impact on the size of the offers made is erroneous. By adopting that erroneous legal assessment without giving it any consideration the General Court, moreover, itself infringed EU law. The General Court disregards the fact that defective tendering conditions could lead to bidders making higher offers than in a tender procedure free of conditions. In the privatisation of Bank Burgenland, the unsuccessful consortium apparently offered an excessively high purchase price in order to compensate for the qualitative shortcomings of its own offer (the risk that, on a sale to the consortium, the deficiency liability would be invoked against the Land). If the General Court regards the qualitative criterion ‘release from deficiency liability’ as being unlawful under State aid rules, it should not have been able at the same time to accept that the consortium’s offer gave a good proxy of Bank Burgenland’s — aid-free — market price.
   By its third ground of appeal, the appellant claims infringement of its right to be heard. The General Court failed to acknowledge an essential plea in law. It is undisputed as between the parties to the proceedings that, prior to completion of the privatisation, Bank Burgenland would have issued additional bonds in the amount of EUR 320 million on a sale to the consortium also. Those bonds would have had the benefit of the Land’s deficiency liability. In that regard, the appellant explicitly stated in its application of 17 July 2008 that the consortium benefited from that measure to a considerably greater extent than the appellant. The Commission failed to take that into account in comparing the two offers. In the judgment under appeal, the General Court fails to address the plea in law concerned. Thus, the General Court failed to deal exhaustively with the appellant’s pleas in law and deprived the Community judicature of the possibility of exercising the power of review conferred upon it.

      (1)  Case T-196/04 Ryanair v Commission [2008] ECR II-3643.


title: Case C-133/10: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 July 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2005/81/EC — Transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings — Undertaking subject to the obligation of keeping separate accounts — Non-transposition within the period prescribed)

text:
               8.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 298/7

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 July 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-133/10) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2005/81/EC - Transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings - Undertaking subject to the obligation of keeping separate accounts - Non-transposition within the period prescribed)
   2011/C 298/11
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: V. Peere and K. Walkerová, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: M. Jacobs and J.-C. Halleux, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2005/81/EC of 28 November 2005 amending Directive 80/723/EEC on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings as well as on financial transparency within certain undertakings (OJ 2005 L 312, p. 47)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2005/81/EC of 28 November 2005 amending Directive 80/723/EEC on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings as well as on financial transparency within certain undertakings, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 148, 5.6.2010.


title: Case C-460/02: Action brought on 19 December 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
8.3.2003               EN                     Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 55/9
Since, under Article 10(2) of the directive, producers and                  —     fails to lay down a maximum period of 7 years
performers must be treated on an equal footing with authors,                      for the selection of suppliers of groundlhandling
the United Kingdom is not entitled to exclude the right to                        services, in accordance with Article 11(1)(d), of the
claim equitable remuneration when a broadcast or cable                            directive in question;
programme containing a recording is seen or heard by a non-
paying audience as set out in paragraph 18 of Schedule 2 of
the 1988 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act.                                —     introduces, by Article 14, a social measure which is
                                                                                not compatible with Article 18 of the directive;
In the view of the Commission, the criterion of a non-paying                —     provides, at Article 20, transitional provisions not
audience as defined in the aforementioned provision goes                          permissible under the directive;
much further than the exceptions to the right permitted under
Article 10 of the directive.
                                                                      (b)   order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
Therefore, the Commission submits that by providing for
exceptions from the right to equitable remuneration granted
to performers where a broadcast or communication to the
public of protected subject matter is seen or heard by a non-
paying audience, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil the          Pleas in law and main arguments
requirements of Community law and in particular of
Article 8(2) of Directive 92/100/EEC.
                                                                      Article 11 of Legislative Decree No 18 of 13 January 1999
( 1) OJ L 346, 27.11.1992, p. 61.                                     does not lay down the maximum period for which suppliers
                                                                      of services are selected at airports in which access to the
                                                                      market is by means of a selection procedure. Article 11(1)(d)
                                                                      of Directive 96/67/EC expressly provides that the maximum
                                                                      period is fixed at 7 years. The Commission therefore takes
                                                                      the view that the absence of a limit to the duration of
                                                                      groundhandling contracts at Italian airports is incompatible
                                                                      with the requirements laid down by the directive.
Action brought on 19 December 2002 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic              Article 18 of Directive 96/67/EC allows Member States to take
                                                                      the necessary measures to ensure protection of the rights of
                                                                      workers. However, such measures must not affect the appli-
                         (Case C-460/02)                              cation of the directive itself and must not obstruct other
                                                                      provisions of Community law. In other words, the protection
                                                                      of the rights of workers is indeed permissible under Article 18
                          (2003/C 55/17)                              of the directive provided that it does not run counter to the
                                                                      effective application of the directive so far as concerns
                                                                      groundhandling services. Article 14(1) of Legislative Decree
                                                                      No 18/99 lays down the objective of adopting measures to
                                                                      protect the number of posts of staff working for the previous
                                                                      service supplier and continuing employment. The second
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the         paragraph of the article in question thus contains the obligation
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 December           to transfer staff any time there is a ‘transfer of business’
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,                   affecting one or more categories of groundhandling services
represented by Mikko Huttunen and Antonio Aresu, acting as            under Annex A and B. Such a provision manifestly exceeds the
Agents.                                                               protection already guaranteed by Council Directive 77/187/
                                                                      EEC of 14 February 1977 ( 2) on the approximation of the laws
                                                                      of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or
                                                                      parts of businesses, as amended by Council Directive 98/50/
                                                                      EC (3) and codified by Council Directive 2001/23/EC ( 4) of
(a)   Declare that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil          12 March 2001. Accordingly, the Commission takes the view
      its obligations under Council Directive 96/67/EC ( 1) of        that Article 14 of Legislative Decree No 18/99 goes beyond
      15 October 1996 on access to the groundhandling                 what may be considered to be permissible measures to
      market at Community airports inasmuch as Legislative            guarantee the protection of the rights of workers under
      Decree No 18 of 13 January 1999                                 Article 18 of Directive 96/67/EC.
 ---pagebreak--- C 55/10                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                            8.3.2003
Article 20 of Legislative Decree No 18/99 relates to contracts                  failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11 of the Sixth
of employment under various organisational arrangements or                      Council Directive 77/388/EC ( 2) of 17 May 1977 on the
contractual conditions in force on 19 November 1998. Such                       harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating
contracts concern staff working for users which carry out self-                 to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:
handling services, which are different from those defined in                    uniform basis of assessment; and
the directive. Those contracts remain in force and unchanged
until expiry; however, they may not be for longer than 6 years.
In actual fact, undertakings with ‘various organisational                 2.    Order Sweden to pay the costs.
arrangements’ are in practice authorised to act as self-handling
operators alongside other self-handling operators and service
suppliers.
The directive provides a clear definition for groundhandling              Pleas in law and main arguments
services operators — groundhandling for third parties and
users which carry out self-handling operations. Entities which
do not fulfil the ‘self-handling’ criteria laid down in Article 2(f)
may only operate groundhandling services for third parties.               The three conditions for inclusion of a subsidy in the taxable
Furthermore, Article 7(2) and Article 11(2) of the directive lay          amount are satisfied. It is clear from Regulation No 603/95
down the specific procedures to follow when appointing self-              that only the undertaking which processes fresh fodder can be
handling operators and suppliers of groundhandling services               granted aid and not producers of fresh fodder, and that the
for third parties. In light of the foregoing considerations,              processing undertaking both enters into a sales agreement
Article 20 appears to infringe those obligations.                         with undertakings which consume dried fodder (supply of
                                                                          goods) and processing agreements with producers of fresh
                                                                          fodder (supply of services). In the present case there is no
( 1) OJ 1996 L 272, p. 36.                                                doubt that the intervention body which pays the aid in
( 2) OJ 1977 L 61, p. 26.                                                 accordance with Regulation No 603/95 is a third person in
( 3) OJ 1998 L 201, p. 88.                                                relation to the processing undertaking and the buyer and that
( 4) OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16.                                                 this intervention takes place in accordance with a procedure
                                                                          for the award of public subsidies.
                                                                          Article 11 A point 1(a) of the Sixth Directive would be
                                                                          interpreted excessively narrowly if only types of aid which are
                                                                          calculated on the basis of the product price are included in the
                                                                          taxable amount for VAT. By its general reference to ‘subsidies
Action brought on 23 December 2002 by Commission                          directly linked to the price of [the taxable] supplies’, the
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                        Community legislature actually intended to include in the
                              Sweden                                      taxable amount for VAT all aid which is directly linked to the
                                                                          price of the goods or services, ie the subsidies which directly
                                                                          influence the size of the supplier’s remuneration. Those
                          (Case C-463/02)                                 subsidies must, in turn, be directly linked to or have a causal
                                                                          connection with precisely indicated or quantifiable supplies of
                                                                          goods or services, ie the aid paid, if and to the extent that the
                           (2003/C 55/18)                                 goods or services are actually sold on the market. That is why
                                                                          the subsidy has a direct influence on the product’s sale price
                                                                          and that clearly shows the underlying idea that subsidies
                                                                          should be included in the taxable amount for VAT, on the
                                                                          basis of a non-restrictive interpretation of Article 11 A
An action against the Kingdom of Sweden was brought                       point 1(a) of the Sixth Directive and in accordance with the
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                general purpose of the article, namely taxation of all the
23 December 2002 by the Commission of the European                        remuneration paid in whole or in part by a person, no matter
Communities, represented by E. Traversa and K. Simonsson,                 who, and which is actually received by the supplier as a
acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.              consequence of the sale of the goods or services.
The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                          (1 ) OJ L 63, 21.3.1995, p. 1.
                                                                          (2 ) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.
1.    Declare that, by failing to levy value added tax on the
      amount of aid paid under Council Regulation (EC)
      No 603/95 ( 1) of 21 February 1995 on the common
      organisation of the market in dried fodder, Sweden has


title: Case T-268/17: Action brought on 8 May 2017 — Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking v Revoind Industriale

text:
               17.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 231/31

         Action brought on 8 May 2017 — Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking v Revoind Industriale
   (Case T-268/17)
   (2017/C 231/39)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking (CSJU) (represented by: B. Mastantuono, Agent and M. Velardo, lawyer)

      Defendant: Revoind Industriale Srl (Oricola, Italy)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               order the defendant to pay the CSJU the amount of EUR 101 370,94 in relation to the Grant Agreement for partners No 632462 ‘EASIER-Experimental Acoustic Subsonic wind tunnel Investigation of the advanced geared turbofan Regional aircraft integrating HLD innovative low-noise design’, plus the amount of EUR 524,91 as late payment interest calculated at a rate of 3,5 % for the period between 7 February 2017 and 1 April 2017;

               —

               order the defendant to pay EUR 9,72 per day by way of interest from 2 April 2017 until the date on which the debt is repaid in full; and

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following plea in law.
   The applicant contends that the defendant has breached its contractual obligations, by failing to implement project EASIER and by failing to provide CSJU with the relevant reports and deliverables, in accordance with Article II.2 Annex II of the Grant Agreement.
   Moreover, the defendant has failed to carry out the work to be performed as identified in Annex I therefore violating its obligations under Article II.3 lett. a) e) and h) of Annex II of the Grant Agreement.
   Accordingly, the applicant terminated the Grant Agreement on the basis of Article II.38 Annex II of the Grant Agreement and issued debit note for the pre-financing of EUR 101 370,94 that had already been paid by the coordinator to the defendant in compliance with the provisions of the Grant Agreement. Indeed the pre-financing remains the property of the applicant until final payment.
   The facts giving rise to Revoind Industriale S.r.l.’s obligations, as beneficiary of the Grant Agreement, are widely undisputed in the present case and the defendant’s objections are generic, incomplete and lack of any supporting element, thus appear to be completely unfounded.
   Accordingly, the applicant is entitled to ask for the recovery and the reimbursement of the amount paid to the defendant as pre-financing, increased by default interest.


title: Case C-214/07: Action brought on 23 April 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

text:
               21.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 170/10

         Action brought on 23 April 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
   (Case C-214/07)
   (2007/C 170/17)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by C. Giolito, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: French Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to implement, within the prescribed period, Decision of the Commission of 16 December 2003 on the aid scheme implemented by France for the takeover of firms in difficulty (State aid C(2003) 4636) (1), the French Republic has failed to perform its obligations under Articles 5 and 6 of that decision, the fourth paragraph of Article 249 of the EC Treaty and Article 10 of that Treaty;

               —

               order the French Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of its application, the Commission claims that the defendant has not taken the necessary measures to ensure the rapid and effective implementation of its decision, because, more than three years after its adoption, there has been no repayment whatsoever of the aid illegally granted by the French State. Such a situation also clearly contravenes the fourth paragraph of Article 249 EC and Article 14(1) and (3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (2).
   Nor can the defendant rely, in respect of the period after 1993, on the absolute impossibility of implementing the decision of 16 December 2003. First, the French authorities did not truly take steps in order to recover the disputed aid, since orders for recovery were not even sent to the debtors. Secondly, those authorities cannot rely on the difficulty of identifying the recipients of the aid in question because, as tax authorities, they could easily quantify the amounts of the tax exemptions from which those recipients had benefited.
   In any event, it is clear from the Court's case-law that the condition as to absolute impossibility of implementation is not satisfied where the defendant State merely informs the Commission of the legal, political or practical difficulties arising from the implementation of the decision ordering the recovery of the aid, without having truly taken steps against the undertakings concerned in order to recover the amount of that aid and without having proposed alternative methods to the Commission of implementing the decision which would have allowed the difficulties to be overcome.

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 108, p. 38.

      (2)  OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1.


title: Case T-19/13: Action brought on 11 January 2013 — Ekologický právní servis v Commission

text:
               16.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/25

         Action brought on 11 January 2013 — Ekologický právní servis v Commission
   (Case T-19/13)
   2013/C 79/44
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Ekologický právní servis (Brno, Czech Republic) (represented by: P. Černý, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the European Commission C(2012) 8382, of 12 November 2012, by which a request for internal review of the applicant of the Commission decision C(2012) 4576, of 6 July 2012, concerning the application pursuant to Article 10(c) (5) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) to give transitional free allocation for the modernisation of electricity generation notified by the Czech Republic has been declared inadmissible;

               —

               Annul the Commission decision C(2012) 4576, of 6 July 2012, concerning the application pursuant to Article 10(c) (5) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council to give transitional free allocation for the modernisation of electricity generation notified by the Czech Republic; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Decision of the European Commission C(2012) 8382, of 12 November 2012, is unlawful, as it is contrary to Article 17 of the Treaty on European Union; Article 263 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union; and Article 2(1)(g) and Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No. 1367/2006 (2).

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission decision C(2012) 4576, of 6 July 2012, is unlawful, as it is contrary to Article 263 TFEU; Directive 2003/87/EC establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community as amended by Directive 2009/29/EC (3); Communication from the Commission — Guidance document on the optional application of Article 10 (c) of Directive 2003/87/EC (2011/C 99/03); and Directive 2001/42/EC (4) on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment.

      (1)  Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies

      (3)  Directive 2009/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 amending Directive 2003/87/EC so as to improve and extend the greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme of the Community

      (4)  Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment