title: Case C-276/10: Action brought on 2 June 2010 — European Commission v Czech Republic

text:
               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/30

         Action brought on 2 June 2010 — European Commission v Czech Republic
   (Case C-276/10)
   ()
   2010/C 209/42
   Language of the case: Czech

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and L. Jelínek, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Czech Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive 2006/118/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the protection of groundwater against pollution and deterioration or, in any event, by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12 of that directive;

               —

               order Czech Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The time-limit for transposition of the directive into national law expired on 16 January 2009.

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 372, p. 19.


title: Case C-34/07: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2003/109/EC — Third-country nationals who are long-term residents — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/14

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-34/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2003/109/EC - Third-country nationals who are long-term residents - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2008/C 22/26)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Condou-Durande, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt within the prescribed period the provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents (OJ 2004 L 16, p. 44)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 69 of 24.3.2007.


title: Case F-29/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 30 September 2010 — Vivier v Commission (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Classification in grade — Grades laid down in the call for applications — Amendment of the rules governing classification of staff — Transitional provisions — Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations — Application by analogy)

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/58

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 30 September 2010 — Vivier v Commission
   (Case F-29/05) (1)

   (Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Classification in grade - Grades laid down in the call for applications - Amendment of the rules governing classification of staff - Transitional provisions - Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations - Application by analogy)
   2010/C 328/91
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Jean-François Vivier (Petten, Netherlands) (represented by: initially, S. Orlandi, A. Coolen and É. Marchal, lawyers, subsequently by S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, H. Krämer and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents, subsequently by J. Currall, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Annulment of the Commission’s decision classifying the applicant at grade A*6 at the time of his recruitment as a member of the temporary staff

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the European Commission’s classification decision, as annexed to the amendment of 21 July 2004 to the temporary staff contract signed by Mr Vivier on 10 June 2004;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of Mr Vivier.

      (1)  OJ C 193, 6.8.2005, p. 31. (Case originally registered at the Court of First Instance of the European Communities as Case T-196/05 and transferred to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal by order of 15.12.2005.)


title: Case C-71/05: Action brought on 14 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               2.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/23

         Action brought on 14 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-71/05)
   (2005/C 82/47)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Mikko Huttunen, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing to adopt, and in any event to notify to the Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 March 2002 on the establishment of rules and procedures with regard to the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at Community airports, (1) the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for transposition of the directive into national law expired on 28 September 2003.

      (1)  OJ No L 85, 28.3.2002, p. 40.


title: Case C-174/08: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 October 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark)) — NCC Construction Danmark A/S v Skatteministeriet (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 19(2) — Deduction of input tax — Hybrid taxable person — Goods and services used for both taxable and exempt activities — Calculation of the deductible proportion — Definition of incidental real estate transactions — Self-supply — Principle of fiscal neutrality)

text:
               19.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 312/6

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 October 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark)) — NCC Construction Danmark A/S v Skatteministeriet
   (Case C-174/08) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Article 19(2) - Deduction of input tax - Hybrid taxable person - Goods and services used for both taxable and exempt activities - Calculation of the deductible proportion - Definition of ‘incidental real estate transactions’ - Self-supply - Principle of fiscal neutrality)
   2009/C 312/08
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Østre Landsret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: NCC Construction Danmark A/S

      Defendant: Skatteministeriet

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Østre Landsret — Interpretation of the second sentence of Article 19(2) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment — Building business engaged in the sale of buildings constructed by it on its own account with a view to resale — Goods and services used for activities which do and do not give rise to entitlement to deduct VAT paid upstream — Calculation of pro rata deduction — Concept of incidental real estate transactions

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 19(2) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment is to be interpreted as meaning that the sale, in the case of a building business, of buildings constructed on its own account cannot be classified as an ‘incidental real estate transaction’ within the meaning of that provision, where that activity constitutes the direct, permanent and necessary extension of its business. In those circumstances, it is not necessary, in this case, to assess to what extent that sales activity, viewed separately, entails a use of goods and services on which value added tax is payable.

               2.

               The principle of fiscal neutrality cannot preclude a building business, which is required to pay value added tax on supplies relating to construction effected on its own account (self-supply), from being unable fully to deduct the value added tax relating to the general costs incurred thereby, since the turnover from the sale of buildings thus constructed is exempt from value added tax.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 5.7.2008.


title: Case T-473/13: Action brought on 3 September 2013 — G-Star Raw v OHIM — PepsiCo (PEPSI RAW)

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/57

         Action brought on 3 September 2013 — G-Star Raw v OHIM — PepsiCo (PEPSI RAW)
   (Case T-473/13)
   2013/C 344/105
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: G-Star Raw CV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: J. van Manen, M. van de Braak and L. Fresco, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: PepsiCo, Inc. (New York, United States)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 25 June 2013 given in Case R 1586/2012-2;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings;

               —

               Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the present proceedings, should it intervene, as well as those incurred in the proceedings before the OHIM.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the verbal elements ‘PEPSI RAW’ for goods in class 32 — Community trade mark application No 6 788 004

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Verbal mark ‘RAW’ for goods in Class 25 — Community trade mark No 4 743 225

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Allowed the opposition and rejected the CTM application in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.


title: Case T-771/14: Action brought on 21 November 2014  — ANKO v Commission

text:
               23.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/36

         Action brought on 21 November 2014 — ANKO v Commission
   (Case T-771/14)
   (2015/C 065/50)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: ANKO Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               declare that the sum of EUR 2 96  149,77, which the Commission paid to the applicant in respect of the DOC@HAND project, constitutes eligible costs and that accordingly the applicant is under no obligation to repay that sum as unduly paid; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant’s legal costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   This action concerns the liability of the Commission under the agreement No 508015 for the performance of the DOC@HAND project, under Article 272 TFEU. In particular, the applicant maintains that, although it performed its contractual obligations, the Commission, contrary to the terms of that agreement, the principle of good faith, the prohibition of abuse of rights and the principle of proportionality, sought the recovery of sums paid to ΑΝΚΟ as not being eligible costs.
   For that reason, the applicant maintains, first, that the Commission relies on wholly unfounded and in any event unproven grounds in order to reject almost all the costs incurred by ANKO as being ineligible and to seek the repayment of the sum paid to ΑΝΚΟ in respect of the DOC@HAND project. The applicant maintains, second, that the Commission, in rejecting 99,59 % of the contribution it is obliged to pay, because that allegedly did not correspond to eligible costs, which the applicant incurred for the requirements of the project, infringes the principles of the prohibition of abuse of rights and of proportionality.


title: Case T-237/05: Action brought on 17 June 2005 by Editions Odile Jacob SAS against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               20.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/32

         Action brought on 17 June 2005 by Editions Odile Jacob SAS against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-237/05)
   (2005/C 205/59)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 17 June 2005 by Editions Odile Jacob SAS, established in Paris, represented by W. van Weert and O. Fréget, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               annul the contested decision, in which the Commission refused to send to the applicant documents which it had requested, since:

                           —

                           the Commission did not specifically and individually examine each of the documents to which the applicant was seeking access;

                           —

                           the Commission wrongly applied the exceptions under Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001;

                           —

                           the Commission infringed in any event the applicant's right to partial access to the documents requested;

                           —

                           the Commission infringed the principle of proportionality by not balancing application of the exceptions under Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 with the higher interest justifying the disclosure of the documents.

               2.

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant has brought two actions for annulment before the Court of First Instance, the first (Case T-279/04) (1) being against the Commission's decision of 7 January 2004 declaring the concentration operation whereby Lagardere was to acquire exclusive control of the assets of Vivendi Universal Publishing, subject to honouring the latter's undertakings, compatible with the common market (COMP.M/2978 — Lagardere/Natexis/VUP), and the second (Case T-452/04) (2) being against the Commission's decision of 30 July 2004, concerning the approval of Wendel Investment as the acquirer of the assets surrendered in accordance with the decision of 7 January 2004.
   On 27 January 2005, the applicant asked the Commission, on the strength of Article 255 EC and Regulation No 1049/2001, for access to certain documents concerning that case. The Commission sent only one of the documents requested, maintaining that the others were covered by exceptions to the principle of public access to documents. On 18 February 2005, the applicant made a confirmatory application, which was likewise rejected by the Commission on 7 April 2005.
   In support of its action against that latter decision, the applicant argues that it is void because it was based on an examination by categories of document requested and not on a specific and individual examination of each document.
   It also argues that the Commission made clear errors of assessment in applying each of the exceptions under Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, which it relied upon in dismissing the request. More particularly, the exceptions concern protection of the purpose of investigation activities, the protection of commercial interests, the protection of the decision-making process, and the protection of the Commission's legal opinions. In the applicant's submission, the Commission has not applied any of those exceptions correctly.
   The applicant also claims that the Commission has infringed its right to at least partial access to the documents concerned.
   Finally, the applicant claims that the proportionality principle has been infringed because the Commission did not balance the exceptions referred to in Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 against the higher public interest justifying disclosure of the documents requested.

      (1)  OJ C 262 of 23.10.04, p. 33

      (2)  OJ C 45 of 19.02.05, p. 24


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 July 2004 in Case T-115/03: Samar SpA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark GAS STATION — Earlier national figurative mark BLUE JEANS GAS — Registration refused)

text:
               25.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/21

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 13 July 2004
   in Case T-115/03: Samar SpA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark GAS STATION - Earlier national figurative mark BLUE JEANS GAS - Registration refused)
   (2004/C 239/44)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case T-115/03: Samar SpA, established in Mottalciata (Italy), represented by A. Ruo, lawyer, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: O. Montalto and M.L. Capostagno), the other party to the proceedings before the OHIM Board of Appeal, and intervening before the Court of First Instance, being Grotto SpA, established in Vicenza (Italy), represented by M. Bosshard and S. Verea, lawyers — action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 January 2003 (Case R 340/2002-3), concerning the opposition of the proprietor of the national figurative mark BLUE JEANS GAS to registration of the Community word mark GAS STATION — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: J. Pirrung, President, A.W.H. Meij and N.J. Forwood, Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 July 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 135 of 7.6.2003.


title: Case C-428/07: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 July 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom)) — Mark Horvath v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Common agricultural policy — Direct support schemes — Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 — Article 5 and Annex IV — Minimum requirements for good agricultural and environmental condition — Maintenance of rights of way — Implementation by a Member State — Transfer of powers to regional authorities of a Member State — Discrimination contrary to Community law)

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/4

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 July 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom)) — Mark Horvath v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
   (Case C-428/07) (1)

   (Common agricultural policy - Direct support schemes - Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 - Article 5 and Annex IV - Minimum requirements for good agricultural and environmental condition - Maintenance of rights of way - Implementation by a Member State - Transfer of powers to regional authorities of a Member State - Discrimination contrary to Community law)
   2009/C 220/05
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Mark Horvath

      Defendant: Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) — Interpretation of Article 5 and of Annex IV to Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 (OJ 2003 L 270, p. 1) — Criteria for good agricultural and environmental condition defined in Article 5 of the regulation and in Annex IV thereto — Possibility of including requirements relating to the maintenance of visible public rights of way — Member State’s internal arrangements which provide that devolved administrations are to have legislative competence in relation to the various constituent parts of that Member State with the consequence that those various parts have different standards of good agricultural and environmental condition

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               A Member State may include requirements relating to the maintenance of visible public rights of way in its standards for good agricultural and environmental condition under Article 5 of and Annex IV to Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001, inasmuch as those requirements contribute to the retention of those rights of way as landscape features or, as the case may be, to the avoidance of the deterioration of habitats.

               2.

               Where the constitutional system of a Member State provides that devolved administrations are to have legislative competence, the mere adoption by those administrations of different standards for good agricultural and environmental condition under Article 5 of and Annex IV to Regulation No 1782/2003 does not constitute discrimination contrary to Community law.

      (1)  OJ C 297, 8.12.2007.


title: Case C-129/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 11 March 2010 — Amalthia I Navtiki Etairia v Ipourgos Emborikis Nautilias

text:
               22.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/26

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 11 March 2010 — Amalthia I Navtiki Etairia v Ipourgos Emborikis Nautilias
   (Case C-129/10)
   2010/C 134/39
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Council of State), Greece

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Amalthia I Navtiki Etairia

      Defendant: Ipourgos Emborikis Nautilias (Minister for Mercantile Marine)

      Question referred

   Do the provisions of Articles 1 and 2 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage) (OJ 1992 L 364, p. 7), interpreted in accordance with the principle of freedom to provide services, allow national schemes to be adopted, whereby shipowners cannot provide cabotage services without a prior administrative authorisation issued, in the context of an authorisation system aimed inter alia at ensuring verification of whether, in light of the prevailing conditions in a specific port, the schedules declared by the shipowner can be implemented under conditions of safety for the ship and maintenance of order in the port and verification of the ability of the scheduled vessel to enter a specific port unhindered at the time declared by the shipowner as the preferred time for a specific service without, however, determination in advance in a legal rule of the criteria on the basis of which the authorities rule on such questions, especially in cases where more than one shipowner is interested in entering the same port at the same time?


title: Case F-9/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 9 November 2013  — Marcuccio v Commission (Civil service — Time-limit for bringing proceedings — Action out of time — Action manifestly inadmissible)

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/54

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 9 November 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case F-9/13) (1)

   ((Civil service - Time-limit for bringing proceedings - Action out of time - Action manifestly inadmissible))
   2014/C 421/76
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision to set off the sum corresponding to the costs it was ordered to pay by the General Court in Case T-176/04 against the greater sum which the applicant is required to pay pursuant to the order in Case T-241/03.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Mr Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 215, 27.7.2013, p. 20.


title: Case C-376/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden lodged on 3 August 2007 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Kamino International Logistics BV

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/23

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden lodged on 3 August 2007 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Kamino International Logistics BV
   (Case C-376/07)
   (2007/C 269/46)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Defendant: Kamino International Logistics B.V.
   Questions referred

               1.

               Must Note 5 to Chapter 84 of the Combined Nomenclature (CN) in the version of Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1789/2003 of 11 September 2003 (1) be interpreted as meaning that a colour monitor which can display both signals from an automatic data-processing machine as referred to in heading 8471 of the CN and from other sources is excluded from classification under heading 8471 of the CN?

               2.

               If classification in heading 8471 of the CN of the colour monitor referred to in question one above is not excluded, on the basis of which criteria must it then be determined whether it is a unit of the sort that is solely or principally used in an automatic data-processing system?

               3.

               Does the scope of application of Commission Regulation (EC) No 754/2004 of 21 April 2004 on the classification of certain goods in the CN (2) extend to the monitor at issue and, if so, in light of the answers to the first and second questions, is that regulation valid?

      (1)  Regulation amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2003 L 281, p. 1).

      (2)  OJ 2004 L 118, p. 32.


title: Case T-114/05: Action brought on 28 February 2005 by Joerg Peter Block and Others against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               14.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 115/33

         Action brought on 28 February 2005 by Joerg Peter Block and Others against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-114/05)
   (2005/C 115/59)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 28 February 2005 by Joerg Peter Block, residing in Sterrebeek (Belgium), and 12 others, represented by Stéphane Rodrigues and Alice Jaune, lawyers.
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decisions of the appointing authority rejecting the complaints of the applicants taken at the same time as the decisions of the appointing authority of 1 May 2004 altering the applicants' grades to Grade A*8 or Grade B*8 as the case may be;

               —

               annul the salary statements of the applicants implementing the decision of the appointing authority to alter the applicants' grades to Grade A*8 or Grade B*8 as the case may be, from 1 May 2004;

               —

               inform the appointing authority of the effects of the annulment of the contested decisions namely, inter alia, the reclassification of the applicants' grades to Grade A*9 or Grade B*9, as the case may be, with retroactive effect from 1 May 2004;

               —

               in the alternative, order the Commission to recognise that the applicants are eligible for promotion to Grade A*10 or Grade B*10, as the case may be, when they are next promoted;

               —

               order the Commission to make good the damage suffered by the applicants as a result of their not being classified in Grade A*9 or Grade B*9, as the case may be, from 1 May 2004;

               —

               order the defendant to bear the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants are all officials of the Commission who were appointed at Grade A7 and B2 before the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations on 1 May 2004. They contest their classification in Grade A*8 and B*8 respectively pursuant to Article 2 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations.
   In support of their application the applicants submit that the application to them of that provision is unlawful, as it breaches Article 6 of the Staff Regulations, the principles of equivalence of the old and new career structures and of equal treatment, as well as the applicants' legitimate expectations and established rights. The applicants also allege misuse of powers.


title: Joined Cases C-402/07 and C-432/07: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 November 2009 (references for preliminary rulings from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) and the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria)) — Christopher Sturgeon, Gabriel Sturgeon, Alana Sturgeon, (C-402/07), Stefan Böck, Cornelia Lepuschitz (C-432/07) v Condor Flugdienst GmbH (C-402/07), Air France SA (C-432/07) (Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 2(l) and Articles 5, 6 and 7 — Concept of flight delay and cancellation — Right to compensation in the event of delay — Concept of extraordinary circumstances )

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/4

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 November 2009 (references for preliminary rulings from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) and the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria)) — Christopher Sturgeon, Gabriel Sturgeon, Alana Sturgeon, (C-402/07), Stefan Böck, Cornelia Lepuschitz (C-432/07) v Condor Flugdienst GmbH (C-402/07), Air France SA (C-432/07)
   (Joined Cases C-402/07 and C-432/07) (1)

   (Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 2(l) and Articles 5, 6 and 7 - Concept of flight ‘delay’ and ‘cancellation’ - Right to compensation in the event of delay - Concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’)
   2010/C 24/06
   Language of the case: German

      Referring courts

   Bundesgerichtshof, Handelsgericht Wien

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Christopher Sturgeon, Gabriel Sturgeon, Alana Sturgeon (C-402/07), Stefan Böck, Cornelia Lepuschitz (C-432/07)

      Defendants: Condor Flugdienst GmbH (C-402/07), Air France SA (C-432/07)

      Re:

   References for preliminary rulings — Bundesgerichtshof, Handelsgericht Wien — Interpretation of Articles 2(l) and 5(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1) — Flight which departed much later than the scheduled time of departure — Distinction between the concepts of ‘delay’ and ‘cancellation’

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Articles 2(l), 5 and 6 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as meaning that a flight which is delayed, irrespective of the duration of the delay, even if it is long, cannot be regarded as cancelled where the flight is operated in accordance with the air carrier’s original planning.

               2.

               Articles 5, 6 and 7 of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that passengers whose flights are delayed may be treated, for the purposes of the application of the right to compensation, as passengers whose flights are cancelled and they may thus rely on the right to compensation laid down in Article 7 of the regulation where they suffer, on account of a flight delay, a loss of time equal to or in excess of three hours, that is, where they reach their final destination three hours or more after the arrival time originally scheduled by the air carrier. Such a delay does not, however, entitle passengers to compensation if the air carrier can prove that the long delay was caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken, namely circumstances beyond the actual control of the air carrier.

               3.

               Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that a technical problem in an aircraft which leads to the cancellation or delay of a flight is not covered by the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of that provision, unless that problem stems from events which, by their nature or origin, are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and are beyond its actual control.

      (1)  OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Maaseutuelinkeinojen Valituslautakunta by order of that tribunal of 9 January 1997 in the proceedings brought by Raija-Liisa Jokela (Case C-9/97)

text:
8 . 3 . 97             EN ]                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 74/ 15
3 . If so, in which cases and on what grounds must                         with the publisher of a competing product dependent
      account be taken of the companies belonging to the                   upon the latter instructing him not only with home
      dominant legal person of a group of companies ?                      deliveries but also with other services ( e.g. marketing
                                                                           through sales points, printing ) within the context of an
(') OJ No C 132 , 14 . 5 . 1994, p . 4 .                                   overall package ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the                              Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Oberlandesgericht, Vienna, by order of that Court of                   Maaseutuelinkeinojen Valituslautakunta by order of that
1 July 1996 in the competition case of Oscar Bronner                   tribunal of 9 January 1997 in the proceedings brought by
GmbH & Co. KG against 1 . Mediaprint Zeitungs- und                                               Raija-Liisa Jokela
Zeitschriftenverlag GmbH & Co. KG; 2 . Mediaprint Zei                                            ( Case C-9/97 )
tungsvertriebsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG; 3 . Mediaprint
                                                                                ( 97/C 74/31 )
             Anzeigengesellschaft mbH & Co. KG
                           ( Case C-7/97 )
                             ( 97/C 74/30 )                            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of
                                                                       the European Communities by an order of the
                                                                       Maaseutuelinkeinojen Valituslautakunta ( Rural Industries
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 Appeals Board ) of 9 January 1997, which was received at
European Communities by order of the Oberlandesgericht                 the Court Registry on 16 January 1997, for a preliminary
(Higher Regional Court — acting as a competition court),               ruling in the proceedings brought by Raija-Liisa Jokela on
Vienna, of 1 July 1996, received at the Court Registry on              the following questions:
15 January 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the
competition case between the applicant, Oscar Brunner                  1 . Is it compatible with the aims of Articles 17 and 18 of
GmbH & Co . KG, and the defendants, 1 . Mediaprint                         Council Regulation (EEC ) No 2328/91 on improving
Zeitungs- und Zeitschriftenverlag GmbH & Co. KG;                           the efficiency of agricultural structures 0 ) and Article 1
2 . Mediaprint Zeitungsvertriebsgesellschaft mbH & Co .                    of Council Directive 75/268/EEC on mountain and hill
KG; 3 . Mediaprint Anzeigengesellschaft mbH & Co. KG,                      farming and farming in certain less-favoured areas ( 2 )
on the following questions:                                                for a compensatory allowance for natural handicaps to
                                                                           be granted to a farmer, if he does not live on a farm
1 . Is Article 86 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted in such               owned or controlled by him in Finland in a less
      a way that there is an abuse of a dominant position, in              favoured area within the meaning of the said
      the sense of an abusive barring of access to the                     Directive, but lives for most of the year outside the
                                                                           said area ?
      market, where an undertaking which carries on the
      publication, production and marketing of daily
      newspapers, and with its products occupies a                         If the answer to the above question is affirmative, even
      predominant position on the Austrian market for daily                partly or conditionally:
      newspapers ( 46,8 % of total circulation, 42 % of
      advertising revenue and 71 % range of influence,                      ( a ) is it permissible, having regard to the said
      measured by the number of all daily newspapers ), and                       provisions and the principles of Article 5 , the
      operates the only intra-regional home-delivery                              second subparagraph of Article 40 ( 3 ), and indent
      distribution service for subscribers, refuses to make a                     ( a ) of the second paragraph of Article 42 of the
      binding offer to another undertaking engaged in the                         Treaty of Rome, and in particular to the principle
      publication, production and marketing of a daily                            of equal treatment of farmers and the associated
      newspaper in Austria to include that daily newspaper                        prohibition of discrimination set out there, to
      in its home-delivery scheme, in the light also of the                       require, in order to obtain the compensation for
      circumstance that it is not possible, on account of the                     natural handicaps referred to in paragraph 6 of the
      small circulation and the consequently small number                         decision of the national Council of State ( 861 /
      of subscribers, for the undertaking seeking inclusion in                    1995 ) in the case of a farmer living outside the
      the home-delivery scheme to build up its own home                          farm and more than 12 kilometres distant by road
      delivery scheme for a reasonable outlay and operate it                      from the operational centre of the farm, that the
      profitably, either alone or in cooperation with the                         farmer both receives at least half his total income
      other undertakings offering daily newspapers on the                         from agriculture, horticulture and forestry and
      market ?                                                                    other activities carried on on the farm and also
                                                                                carries on farming on the farm himself; and
2 . Does it amount to an abuse within the meaning of
      Article 86 of the EC Treaty, where, under the                         ( b ) is it consistent in particular with the principle of
      circumstances described in question 1 above, the                            legal certainty to be observed in the Community
      operator of the home-delivery scheme for daily                              legal order always also to require that a special
      newspapers makes the entry into business relations                          reason should exist ?
 ---pagebreak---  No C 74/ 16              EN 1                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        8 . 3 . 97
 2. Is it contrary, with respect in particular to a farmer                      a uniform and binding manner by the member banks
       who lives for most of the year in another Member                         — are, taken as a whole, compatible with Article 85
       State of the EU together with his or her spouse who is                   of the Treaty, in relation to the individual clauses
       the other owner of the said farm and works as                            discussed in the grounds of this order, in that they are
       a diplomatic representative of the Finnish State, to                     liable adversely to affect trade between the Member
       the prohibition of discrimination, the principle of                      States and have as their object and effect the
       proportionality or other principles to be observed in                    prevention, restriction or distortion of competition
       Community law to exclude him or her from the                             within the common market;
       compensation in question ?
                                                                           4 . what effects any finding of incompatibility in
 (') OJ No L 218 , 6 . 8 . 1991 , p . 1 .                                       accordance with question 3 may have on the
 (2 ) OJ No L 128 , 19 . 5 . 1975 , p. 1 .                                      corresponding clauses of the 'all-embracing' guarantee
                                                                                agreements and on the agreements themselves
                                                                                concluded 'downstream' by individual banks, since, as
                                                                                a group, the banks belonging to the ABI may be
                                                                                regarded, within the meaning and for the purposes of
                                                                                Article 86 of the Treaty, as holding a joint dominant
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di                          position in the national credit market, whose specific
Genova — Sezione Sesta Civile by order of that court of                         application of the rules in question is regarded as an
 18 December 1996 in the case of Palmira Ieropoli and                           abuse .
        Giovanni Sgambellone against Banca Carige SpA
                             ( Case C-23/97 )
                               ( 97/C 74/32 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     Action brought on 17 January 1997 by the Commission of
European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Geno                    the European Communities against the Federal Republic
va — Sezione Sesta Civile ( Genoa District Court, Sixth                                                 of Germany
Civil Chamber ) of 18 December 1996, which was received                                              ( Case C-24/97)
at the Court Registry on 17 January 1997, for a                                                        ( 97/C 74/33 )
preliminary ruling in the case of Palmira Ieropoli and
Giovanni Sgambellone against Banca Carige SpA on the
                                                                          An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
following questions :
                                                                           brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                           Communities on 17 January 1997 by the Commission of
1 . whether the Norma Bancarie Uniforme (Uniform Bank                     the European Communities, represented by Peter
      Rules ) laid down by the ABI ( Associazione Bancaria                Hillenkamp and Peter Jan Kuijper, of its Legal Service,
      Italiana ) for its members in relation to contracts for             acting as Agents, with an address for service in
      the opening of current account credit facilities — since            Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of
      they are laid down and applied in a uniform and                     its Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg,
      binding manner by the banks belonging to the ABI —                  Luxembourg.
      are compatible with Article 85 of the Treaty, where
      they make the credit facility subject to conditions for             The applicant claims that the Court should:
      determination      of      an  interest rate  which    is  not
      previously determined and is not determinable by the                — declare that the Federal Republic of Germany has
      customer, and they are liable adversely to affect trade                  failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 48 , 52 and
      between the Member States and have as their object                       59 of the EC Treaty and under Article 4 ( 1 ) of Council
      and effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of                  Directive 68/360/EEC of 15 October 1968 on the
      competition within the common market;                                    abolition of restrictions on movement and residence
                                                                               within the Community for workers of Member States
2 . what effects any finding of incompatibility in                             and their families (') and under Article 4 ( 1 ) of
      accordance with question 1 may have on the                               Council Directive 73/ 148/EEC on the abolition of
      corresponding clauses of the contracts for the opening                   restrictions on movement and residence within the
      of a current account credit facility, concluded                          Community for nationals of Member States with
      'downstream' by member banks with individual                             regard to establishment and the provision of
      customers, since, as a group, the banks belonging to                     services ( 2 ) in so far as under paragraph 12 a ( 2 ) and
      the ABI may be regarded, within the meaning and for                      ( 3 ) of the AufenthG/EWG ( Law on residence of EC
      the purposes of Article 86 of the Treaty, as holding a                   Community nationals ) non-German Community
      joint dominant position in the national credit market,                   nationals in the Federal Republic of Germany are
      whose specific application of the rules in question (in                  treated, as regards the degree of fault and scale of
      connection with determination of the interest payable                    fines, disproportionately differently from German
      on the loan ) is regarded as an abuse;                                   nationals who commit a comparable infringement of
                                                                               the obligation to prove their identity ( paragraph 5 ( 1 )
3 . whether the NBU laid down by the ABI for its                               and (2 ) of the PersonalausweisG ( Law on identity
      members in relation to the 'all-embracing' guarantee                     cards ) in conjunction with paragraph 17 ( 1 ) of the
      covering the credit facility — since they are applied in                 OWiG ( Law on administrative offences )),


title: Case C-503/04: Action brought on 7 December 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               19.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/15

         Action brought on 7 December 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-503/04)
   (2005/C 45/29)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 7 December 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Bernhard Schima, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

               1.

               Declare that the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 228(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community inasmuch as it has not taken the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the European Court of Justice of 10 April 2003 in Joined Cases C-20/01 and C-28/01 Commission v Germany
                   (1) regarding the award of a contract for the collection of waste water by the Municipality of Bockhorn and of a contract for waste disposal by the City of Braunschweig;

               2.

               Order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay to the Commission's own resources account of the European Community a daily penalty payment
               of EUR 31 680 for each day of delay in implementing the measures necessary to comply with the abovementioned judgment in respect of the award of a contract for the collection of waste water by the Muncipality of Bockhorn and
               of EUR 126 720 for each day of delay in implementing the measures necessary to comply with the abovementioned judgment in respect of the award of a contract for waste disposal by the City of Braunschweig,
               in each case from the date of delivery of that judgment until the measures are implemented;

               3.

               Order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In its judgment of 10 April 2003 the Court of Justice declared that:

               —

               since the Municipality of Bockhorn (Germany) failed to invite tenders for the award of the contract for the collection of its waste water and failed to publish notice of the results of the procedure for the award of the contract in the Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Communities, the Federal Republic of Germany, at the time of the award of that public service contract, failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8 in conjunction with Article 15(2) and Article 16(1) of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts;

               —

               since the City of Braunschweig (Germany) awarded a contract for waste disposal by negotiated procedure without prior publication of a contract notice, although the criteria laid down in Article 11(3) of Directive 92/50 for an award by privately negotiated procedure without a Community-wide invitation to tender had not been met, the Federal Republic of Germany, at the time of the award of that public service contract, failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8 and Article 11(3)(b) of Directive 92/50.

         The Commission takes the view that fulfilment of the obligations of the Federal Republic of Germany which flow from that judgment and from Article 228 EC requires that the contracts concluded in breach of public procurement law be terminated.
   The measures notified by the Federal Republic of Germany so far do not, however, appear to be sufficient to bring an end to the infringement of the Treaty established by the Court of Justice.
   In the event that the Federal Republic of Germany does not take the measures necessary to bring an end to that infringement of the Treaty before the judgment requested in the present action is given, the Commission requests the imposition of a daily penalty payment which it proposes should be calculated in accordance with the principles observed by it in the past.

      (1)  [2003] ECR I-3609.


title: Case T-496/15 P: Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2016 — CX v Commission (Appeal — Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Disciplinary proceedings — Disciplinary measure — Downgrading — Rights of the defence — Articles 4 and 6 of the Staff Regulations — Article 9 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations — Principle of proportionality — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               27.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2016 — CX v Commission
   (Case T-496/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Disciplinary proceedings - Disciplinary measure - Downgrading - Rights of the defence - Articles 4 and 6 of the Staff Regulations - Article 9 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations - Principle of proportionality - Manifest error of assessment))
   (2016/C 232/26)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: CX (Enghien, Belgium) (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Ehrbar and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 18 June 2015, CX v Commission (F-27/13, EU:F:2015:60), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders CX to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 371, 9.11.2015.


title: Case T-26/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 10 September 2008 — Serviço Intermunicipalizado de Gestão de Resíduos do Grande Porto (Lipor) v Commission (Action for annulment — Cohesion Fund — Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 — Reduction of financial assistance — No direct concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/41

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 10 September 2008 — Serviço Intermunicipalizado de Gestão de Resíduos do Grande Porto (Lipor) v Commission
   (Case T-26/07) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Cohesion Fund - Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 - Reduction of financial assistance - No direct concern - Inadmissibility)
   (2008/C 285/76)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Serviço Intermunicipalizado de Gestão de Resíduos do Grande Porto (Lipor) (Baguim do Monte, Portugal) (represented by: P. Moura Pinheiro, M. Gorjão Henriques and F. Quintela, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Guerra e Andrade and A. Weimar, Agents)
   Re:
   Action for annulment of decision C(2006) 5008 of the Commission of 17 October 2006 concerning the reduction of the Cohesion Fund as regards certain projects relating to the factory for the incineration of solid urban waste of household origin in the Region of Porto.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

               2.

               Serviço Intermunicipalizado de Gestão de Resíduos do Grande Porto (Lipor) shall pay its own costs and those incurred by the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 82 of 17.4.2007.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 5 June 1996 in Case T-398/94: Kahn Scheepvaart BV v. Commission of the European Communities (State aid - Shipbuilding - General aid scheme - Action for annulment - Admissibility)

text:
24 . 8 . 96              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 247/ 11
3 . If the answer to the preceding question is in the                          Removal from the register of Case C-306/95 ( )
      affirmative, the Court of Justice is asked to rule whether                                  ( 96/C 247/21 )
      the Community legal order is compatible with a national
      provision which provides that a prescription period
      should start to run ( to the detriment of a citizen of a
      Member State relying on the provisions of a directive in           By order of 29 April 1996 , the President of the Court of
      order to obtain repayment of a charge which was unduly             Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
      collected ) before that directive was correctly transposed         from the register of Case C-306/95 : Commission of the
      into national law .                                                European Communities v. United Kingdom of Great Britain
                                                                         and Northern Ireland .
(!) 1993 | ECR 1-1915 .
( 2 ) O } No L 249 , 3 . 10 . 1969 , p . 25 .
                                                                         (') OJ No C 299 , 11 . 11 . 1995 .
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                            of 5 June 1996                                                       of 6 June 1996
in Case T-398/94 : Kahn Scheepvaart BV v. Commission of                  in Case T-262/94 : Jean Baiwir v. Commission of the
                   the European Communities ( 1 )                                          European Communities ( ' )
(State aid — Shipbuilding — General aid scheme — Action                  (Officials — Plea of illegality — Consistency between the
                 for annulment — Admissibility)                          complaint and the application — New method of assessing
                             ( 96/C 247/22 )                             careerprofiles for Categories B, C and D at the Commission
                                                                         — List of officials considered most deserving ofpromotion
                                                                         — Articles 5 (3) and 45 of the StaffRegulations — Principle
                                                                         of non-discrimination — Manifest errors of assessment of
                  (Language of the case: English)                                    fact and law — Action for damages)
                                                                                ( 96 /C 247/23 )
In Case T-398/94 : Kahn Scheepvaart BV, established in
Rotterdam ( Netherlands ), represented by Thomas Jestaedt,
Rechtsanwalt, Düsseldorf, and Tom R. Ottervanger, of the
Rotterdam Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg                                (Language of the case: French)
at the Chambers of Carlos Zeyen , 67 Rue Ermesinde, v.
Commission of the European Communities ( Agents: Paul
Nemitz and Jean-Paul Keppenne ) — application for
annulment of the Commission 's decision of 25 October
 1994 authorizing for 1994 a German aid scheme for
shipbuilding — the Court of First Instance ( Third Chamber,              In Case T-262/94 : Jean Baiwir, an official of the
Extended Composition ), composed of C. P. Briët, President,              Commission of the European Communities , residing at
B. Vesterdorf, P. Lindh, A. Potocki and J. D. Cooke, Judges;             Court-Saint-Etienne ( Belgium ), represented by Georges
J. Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has               Vandersanden , of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
given a judgment on 5 June 1996 , in which it:                           service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
                                                                         Sari, 1 Rue Glesener v. Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities ( Agents : first, Joseph Griesmar, then Julian
 1 . dismisses the application as inadmissible;                          Currall , both assisted by Denis Waelbroeck ) — application
                                                                         for annulment of the list of officials considered most
                                                                         deserving of promotion to Grade B 4 under the 1993
2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.                               promotion procedure in so far as it does not contain the
                                                                         applicant's name, reinstatement of the applicant in his
                                                                         career as an official in Grade B 4/2 with effect from
(') OJ No C 400 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .
                                                                          1 January 1993 and compensation for the non-material
                                                                         damage suffered — the Court of First Instance ( Fourth
                                                                         Chamber ), composed of K. Lenaerts, President, P. Lindh
                                                                         and J. D. Cooke , Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator,
                                                                         for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 6 June 1996 , the
                                                                         operative part of which is as follows:


title: Case C-519/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles Protodikio Athinon (Greece) lodged on 27 November 2008 — Arkhontia Koukou v Elliniko Dimosio

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/30

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles Protodikio Athinon (Greece) lodged on 27 November 2008 — Arkhontia Koukou v Elliniko Dimosio
   (Case C-519/08)
   (2009/C 44/50)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Referring court
   Monomeles Protodikio Athinon (Court of First Instance, Athens)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Claimant: Arkhontia Koukou

      Defendant: Elliniko Dimosio (Greek State)
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is clause 5 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work set out in the annex to Directive 1999/70/EC to be interpreted as meaning that an objective reason for the entering into of successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships can be considered to be constituted by the fact that those contracts have been entered into in reliance upon a legislative provision which provides for the entering into of fixed-term employment contracts or relationships, irrespective of whether fixed and permanent needs of the employer are in fact covered by them?

               2.

               Does the addition of criteria for establishing abuse, in the measures which were adopted in implementation of clause 5 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work (for example, a maximum duration of contracts and number of renewals within the framework of which employment is permitted even without an objective reason justifying the entering into or renewal of fixed-term employment contracts or relationships), constitute an impermissible reduction, within the meaning of clause 8(3) of the framework agreement, of the general level of protection that existed prior to Directive 1999/70, given that under the legal regime that preceded that directive the sole criterion for establishing abuse was employment under an employment contract or relationship entered into for a fixed term without an objective reason?

               3.

               Does the enactment of imprecise and non-exhaustive lists of exceptions, such as those set out by the permanent provisions of Presidential Decree No 164/2004, to the maximum limits that are laid down in principle with regard to the entering into of successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships constitute an effective measure for preventing the abuse that arises from the use of successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships, for the purposes of clause 5 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work?

               4.

               Can measures such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which were laid down by Article 7 of Presidential Decree No 164/2004, be considered to be effective for preventing and protecting against abuse, for the purposes of clause 5 of the framework agreement, when:

                           (a)

                           they lay down, as a means of preventing abuse and protecting fixed-term workers against abuse, the obligation on the employer to pay wages and severance ‘compensation’ in the event of abuse in the form of employment under successive fixed-term employment contracts, given that (i) the obligation to pay wages and severance ‘compensation’ is laid down by national law for all employment relationships and is not intended specifically to prevent abuse, within the meaning of the framework agreement, and (ii) in particular, the obligation to pay ‘compensation’ on the termination of fixed-term employment contracts or relationships is a consequence of the application of clause 4 of the framework agreement which is concerned with fixed-term workers not being discriminated against vis-à-vis the corresponding permanent workers; and

                           (b)

                           they provide, as a means of preventing abuse, for penalties to be imposed on the competent organs of the employer, in so far as it has been found that similar or analogous penalties which were also prescribed in the past as regards the public sector were ineffective for combating abuse resulting from the use of successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships?

               5.

               Is Directive 1999/70 correctly transposed into Greek law by measures, even if they are effective, such as those adopted in Article 11 of Presidential Decree No 164/2004, which entered into force on 19 July 2004, that is to say after the time-limit laid down by Directive 1999/70, and which were given only three months' retroactivity, so that they cover only successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships that were valid after 19 April 2004 and do not cover fixed-term employment contracts or relationships which continued to be entered into successively even after the expiry of the period for compliance with Directive 1999/70 and before 19 April 2004?

               6.

               If the view is taken that the measures adopted in Presidential Decree No 164/2004 to comply with clause 5 of the framework agreement are not effective, is the court obliged, within the framework of the obligation to interpret national law in conformity with Community law, to apply in conformity with Directive 1999/70 the Greek law which existed before that decree (such as Article 8(3) of Law No 2112/1920), on the basis of which it is possible to achieve protection of the claimant against abuse, in a manner that leads to the elimination of the consequences of the breach of Community law?

               7.

               If the view is taken that the measures adopted in Presidential Decree No 164/2004 are not effective and the legal regime existing before it (Article 8(3) of Law No 2112/1920) is applicable, within the framework of the obligation to interpret national law in conformity with Community law, is it compatible with Community law to interpret national rules which are formally higher-ranking (Article 103(8) of the Constitution) as prohibiting absolutely the conversion of fixed-term contracts into contracts of indefinite duration, even where it is apparent that in reality those contracts have been entered into by way of an abuse on the legal basis of provisions designed to cover needs that are exceptional and temporary generally, because the contracts covered fixed and permanent needs of a public-sector employer (to this effect, Judgments No 19/2007 and No 20/2007 of the Arios Pagos (Full Court)), when a possible interpretation is also that that prohibition must be limited solely to fixed-term employment contracts which have in fact been entered into to cover temporary, unforeseen, urgent or exceptional needs and not also cover cases where they have in reality been entered into to cover fixed and permanent needs (to this effect, Judgment No 18/2006 of the Arios Pagos (Full Court))?

               8.

               Is it consistent with Community law for disputes relating to fixed-term work and clause 5 of the framework agreement to fall, after the entry into force of Presidential Decree No 164/2004, within the exclusive jurisdiction of the administrative courts, when that renders access of a claimant fixed-term worker to justice more difficult, given that, before the adoption of Presidential Decree No 164/2004, all disputes relating to fixed-term work fell within the jurisdiction of the civil courts under the special labour disputes procedure which is more lenient as regards observance of formal requirements, simpler, less costly for the claimant fixed-term worker and, as a rule, quicker?


title: Case T-225/12: Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2014 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM — Lídl Music (LIDL express) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark LIDL express — Earlier national figurative mark LÍDL MUSIC — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 15(1) and Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               7.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/34

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2014 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM — Lídl Music (LIDL express)
   (Case T-225/12) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark LIDL express - Earlier national figurative mark LÍDL MUSIC - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 15(1) and Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   2014/C 102/53
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: initially by M. Schaeffer, M. Wolter and A. Marx, and subsequently by M. Wolter, A. Marx and M. Kefferpütz, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Lídl Music spol. s r.o. (Brno, Czech Republic)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 March 2012 (Case R 2379/2010-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Lídl Music spol. s r.o. and Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 227, 28.7.2012.


title: Case T-327/12: Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2014  — Simca Europe v OHIM — PSA Peugeot Citroën (Simca) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark Simca — Bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               24.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2014 — Simca Europe v OHIM — PSA Peugeot Citroën (Simca)
   (Case T-327/12) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark Simca - Bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2014/C 194/28
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Simca Europe Ltd (Birmingham, United Kingdom) (represented by: N. Haberkamm, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: GIE PSA Peugeot Citroën (Paris, France) (represented by: P. Kotsch, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 April 2012 (Case R 645/2011-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between GIE PSA Peugeot Citroën and Simca Europe Ltd.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders Simca Europe Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.


title: Case F-95/11: Action brought on 28 September 2011 — ZZ v EIB

text:
               26.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/46

         Action brought on 28 September 2011 — ZZ v EIB
   (Case F-95/11)
   2011/C 347/88
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: N. Thieltgen, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Investment Bank

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the implied decision by the EIB to alter the conditions of exercise and the nature of the applicant’s duties, and a claim for damages.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the implied decision by the EIB to alter the conditions of exercise and the nature of the applicant’s duties;

               —

               direct the EIB to reinstate the applicant in a post in accordance with his grade and employment;

               —

               declare the existence of administrative errors by the EIB;

               —

               declare the EIB liable to the applicant in respect of the unlawfulness of the decision and the administrative errors;

               —

               order the EIB to compensate the applicant for the material and non-material damage arising from the unlawful decision and administrative errors, plus interest for delay;

                           —

                           with regard to the unlawfulness of the decision:

                                       —

                                       for non-material damage, EUR 20 000;

                                       —

                                       for material damage by way of loss of remuneration, EUR 113 100;

                                 with regard to the administrative errors:

                                       —

                                       for infringement by the EIB of its duty to have due regard for the welfare of officials and its duty of protection, EUR 119 100;

                                       —

                                       for infringement of Article 42 of the Staff Regulations, EUR 10 000

               —

               order the EIB to pay the costs.


title: Case T-244/16: Action brought on 13 May 2016 – Yanukovych v Council

text:
               4.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/49

         Action brought on 13 May 2016 – Yanukovych v Council
   (Case T-244/16)
   (2016/C 243/55)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych (Kyiv, Ukraine) (represented by: T. Beazley, QC)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/318 of 4 March 2016 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2016 L 60, p. 76) insofar as it applies to the applicant;

               —

               annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/311 of 4 March 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2016 L 60, p. 1), on the basis that it fails to revoke the Regulation No 208/2014, insofar as it applies to the applicant;

               —

               order the Council to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Council of the European Union (‘the Council’) lacked a proper legal basis for the contested measures. First, the conditions for the Council relying on Article 29 TEU were not fulfilled by the contested measures. Amongst other things: (i) the Council’s expressly invoked objectives (consolidating the rule of law and respect for human rights in Ukraine) are merely vague assertions that cannot be legitimately sustained as a valid basis for these measures; (ii) the basis on which the Council seeks to rely lacks any sufficient connection to the proper standard of judicial review required in the present circumstances; and (iii) the imposition of restrictive measures on the applicant in fact supports and legitimises the conduct of the new regime in Ukraine that is itself undermining due process and the rule of law and that is violating, and is prepared systematically to violate, human rights. Second, the conditions for relying on Article 215 TFEU were not fulfilled because there was no valid decision under Chapter 2 of Title V TEU. Third, there was no sufficient link for Article 215 TFEU to be relied on against the applicant.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Council misused its powers. The Council’s actual purpose in implementing the contested measures was essentially to try to curry favour with the current regime in Ukraine (so that Ukraine proceeds with closer ties with the EU), and not the purposes/rationales stated on the face of the contested measures

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to state reasons. The ‘statement of reasons’ adopted in the contested measures for including the applicant (in addition to being wrong) are formulaic, inappropriate and inadequately particularised.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the applicant does not fulfil the stated criteria for a person to be listed at the relevant time.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council made manifest errors of assessment in including the applicant in the contested measures. In re-designating the applicant, notwithstanding the clear disconnect between the ‘statement of reasons’ and the relevant designation criteria, the Council has made a manifest error.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s rights of defence have been breached and/or that he has been denied effective judicial protection. Amongst other things, the Council has failed to adequately consult with the applicant prior to the re-designation, and the applicant has not been afforded a proper or fair opportunity either to correct errors or produce information relating to his personal circumstances.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Applicant’s rights to property under Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, have been breached in that, amongst other things, the restrictive measures are an unjustified and disproportionate restriction on those rights, because inter alia: (i) there is no suggestion that any funds allegedly misappropriated by the applicant are considered to have been transferred outside Ukraine; and (ii) it is neither necessary nor appropriate to freeze all the applicant’s assets since the Ukraine authorities have now quantified the value of the losses allegedly being pursued in underlying criminal cases against the applicant.


title: Case C-496/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove (Slovakia) lodged on 6 November 2012 — Spoločenstvo vlastníkov bytov MYJAVA v Podtatranská vodárenská prevádzková spoločnosť, a.s.

text:
               23.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/7

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove (Slovakia) lodged on 6 November 2012 — Spoločenstvo vlastníkov bytov MYJAVA v Podtatranská vodárenská prevádzková spoločnosť, a.s.
   (Case C-496/12)
   2013/C 86/10
   Language of the case: Slovak

      Referring court

   Krajský súd v Prešove

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Spoločenstvo vlastníkov bytov MYJAVA

      Defendant: Podtatranská vodárenská prevádzková spoločnosť, a.s.

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the provisions of European Union directives such as Directive 1999/44/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees, Council Directive 85/374/EEC (2) of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products, and other directives intended for the protection of consumers, be interpreted as meaning that the same protection as for consumers is also afforded to a legal person, if in contracts covered by those directives it acts for purposes which are not related to a trade or business?

               2.

               Must the provisions of European Union directives such as Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees and Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products be interpreted as meaning that a provision of national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which when goods supplied are ascertained to be faulty limits a restitutionary claim such as a claim to recovery of the proceeds of unjust enrichment solely to the period from the last reading of the water meter carried out before the submission of the request is incompatible with them?

      (1)  OJ 1999 L 171, p. 12.

      (2)  OJ 1985 L 210, p. 29.


title: Case F-139/07: Action brought on 10 December 2007 — Van Arum v Parliament

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/49

         Action brought on 10 December 2007 — Van Arum v Parliament
   (Case F-139/07)
   (2008/C 92/99)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Rinse Van Arum (Winksele, Belgium) (represented by: W. van den Muijsenbergh, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament
   The subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   (i) The applicant seeks alteration of his Staff Report and, alternatively, its annulment. As a further alternative, the applicant seeks an order that all evidence supporting certain contested remarks in his Staff Report be disclosed to him and that the Tribunal rule on the contested facts and marking. (ii) The applicant seeks an order that the appointing authority pay to him a token sum of one euro in compensation.
   Form of order sought

               —

               Alter the Staff Report;

               —

               Alternatively, annul the report in its entirety;

               —

               As a further alternative, order that all evidence supporting certain contested remarks in the Staff Report be disclosed to the applicant and rule on the contested facts and marking;

               —

               Order the appointing authority to pay to him a token sum of one euro in compensation;

               —

               Order the European Parliament to pay the costs.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 5 May 1998 in Case C-391/96 P: Compagnie Continentale (France) SA v. Commission of the European Communities (Emergency assistance given by the Community to the States of the former Soviet Union - Loan - Documentary credit - Action for annulment - Admissibility - 'Directly concerned')

text:
C 209/10              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       4.7.98
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        of 5 May 1998                                                        of 5 May 1998
in Case C-391/96 P: Compagnie Continentale (France) SA               in Case C-403/96 P: Glencore Grain Ltd v. Commission of
       v. Commission of the European Communities (1)                                 the European Communities (1)
(Emergency assistance given by the Community to the                  (Emergency assistance given by the Community to the
States of the former Soviet Union Ð Loan Ð                           States of the former Soviet Union Ð Loan Ð
Documentary credit Ð Action for annulment Ð                          Documentary credit Ð Action for annulment Ð
            Admissibility Ð Directly concerned')                                Admissibility Ð Directly concerned')
                         (98/C 209/19)                                                        (98/C 209/20)
                (Language of the case: French)                                       (Language of the case: Dutch)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                            published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-391/96 P: Compagnie Continentale (France) SA,              In Case C-403/96 P: Glencore Grain Ltd, formerly trading
a company incorporated under French law, established in              as Richco Commodities Ltd, a company incorporated
Levallois-Perret (France), represented by Patrick Chabrier,          under Bermudian law, established at Hamilton (Bermuda),
of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in                     represented by M. M. Slotboom, P. V. F. Bos and J. G. A.
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8Ð10                    van Zuuren, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address for
Rue Mathias Hardt Ð appeal against the judgment of the               service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch,
Court of First Instance of the European Communities                  11 Rue Goethe Ð appeal against the judgment of the
(Third Chamber) of 24 September 1996 in Case T-494/93                Court of First Instance of the European Communities
Compagnie Continentale v. Commission [1996] ECR                      (Third Chamber) of 24 September 1996 in Case T-491/93
II-1157, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the                Richco v. Commission [1996] ECR II-1131, seeking to
other party to the proceedings being the Commission                  have that judgment set aside, the other party to the
of the European Communities (Agents: Marie-JoseÂ                     proceedings being the Commission of the European
Jonczy and Nicholas Khan) Ð the Court, composed                      Communities (Agents: B. J. Drijber and N. Khan) Ð the
of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann,                 Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President,
H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur) and                           C. Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur)
R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini, J. C.          and R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini,
Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray,                 J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray,
D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann,            D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann,
L. Sevón and K. M. Ioannou, Judges, Advocate General:                L. Sevón and K. M. Ioannou, Judges, Advocate General:
A. La Pergola, Registrar: D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal             A. La Pergola, Registrar: D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal
Administrator, has given a judgment on 5 May 1998, in                Administrator, has given a judgment on 5 May 1998, in
which it:                                                            which it:
1. Annuls the judgment of the Court of First Instance of             1. Annuls the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
     24 September 1996 in Case T-494/93 Compagnie                         24 September 1996 in Case T-491/93 Richco v.
     Continentale v. Commission in so far as it dismisses as              Commission inasmuch as it dismisses as inadmissible
     inadmissible the action for annulment brought by                     the action for annulment brought by Glencore Grain
     Compagnie Continentale (France) SA.                                  Ltd, formerly trading as Richco Commodities Ltd.
2. Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance for           2. Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance for
     judgment on the substance.                                           judgment on the substance.
3. Reserves costs.                                                   3. Reserves costs.
(1) OJ C 40 of 8.2.1997.                                             (1) OJ C 74 of 8.3.1997.


               7.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 66/30

         Action brought on 30 November 2012 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
   (Case E-13/12)
   2013/C 66/10
   An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 30 November 2012 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Xavier Lewis and Maria Moustakali, acting as Agents, Rue Belliard 35, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               declare that by failing to adopt, or to notify the Authority of, the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 10 of Part 7.1 of Chapter I of Annex I to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Council Directive 90/167/EEC of 26 March 1990 laying down the conditions governing the preparations, placing on the market and use of medicated feedingstuffs in the Community), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement; and

               2.

               order Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.

      Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Iceland is required under Article 15 of Council Directive 90/167/EEC of 26 March 1990 (‘the Directive’), and Article 7 of the EEA Agreement, to take the necessary measures in order to implement the Directive, and to inform the EFTA Surveillance Authority of the measures taken.

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that it has received no such information from the Icelandic Government, nor is it in possession of any other information which would enable it to conclude that the measures necessary to implement the Directive have been taken.

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15 of the Directive and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to adopt, or to notify the Authority of, the measures necessary to implement the Directive within the time prescribed.