title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte Suprema di Cassazione by order of that court of 24 October 1996 in the case of Società Trasporti Castelletti Spedizioni Internazionali SpA against Hugo Trumpy SpA (Case C-159/97)

text:
12 . 7 . 97             EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 212/9
Action brought on 23 April 1997 by the Commission                                  the jurisdiction clause by means of the requirements
of the European Communities against Van Balkom                                     laid down by that provision in respect of the validity
                     Non-Ferro Scheiding BV                                        of such clauses; that is also the case where the clause
                          ( Case C-156/97)                                         is adjudged valid, when the bill of lading containing
                                                                                the    clause   comes  within    the   framework      of  a
                              ( 97/C 212/17)                                       continuing business relationship between the parties,
                                                                                and it is thereby established that the relationship is
An action against Van Balkom Non-Ferro Scheiding BV                                governed by the general terms and conditions ( drawn
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                            up by one of the parties, namely the carrier )
Communities on 23 April 1997 by the Commission of the                              containing that clause ( see the judgment in Case 71 /
European Communities, represented by H. Van Lier and                               83 (2 ) which cites earlier judgments underscoring the
G. zur Hausen, acting as Agents, with an address for                               need for the consent of the parties to be clearly and
service in Luxembourg at the office of C. Gomez de la                              precisely demonstrated ).
Cruz, of the Commission's Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
Kirchberg.                                                                         However, in the light of the insertion into the new
                                                                                wording of the provision of the reference to usage,
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                       which is prescriptive ( and thus unconnected to the
                                                                                will of the parties, at least so far as specifically
1 . order the defendant to pay to the Commission of the                            concerns a particular contract), the question arises
       European Communities the amount of ECU 251 649 ,                            whether the requirement of ( actual ) knowledge, or of
       plus interest due from 1 July 1991 at the percentage                        lack of awareness arising out of negligent and
       rates, published on the first working day of each                           inexcusable ignorance, is sufficient in view of the
       month, which the European Monetary Cooperation                              consistent incorporation ( in all agreements similar to
       Fund charges in respect of its ecu transactions, along                      that in issue ) of the jurisdiction clause . The question
       with the 4% default interest on ECU 251 649 owing                           arises, in other words, whether it is any longer
       since 1 May 1995 ;                                                          necessary to ascertain the will of the parties, despite
                                                                                the fact that Article 17 uses the word 'concluded' ( in
2 . order the defendant to pay the costs of the                                    the Italian version ), which implies an expression of
       proceedings .                                                               will and thus 'commercial' usage (customary clauses ).
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                         ( b ) The second question concerns the meaning of the
The action is based on contract BM 488/88 DE-NL,
                                                                                expression 'form which accords'. The first aspect
                                                                                concerns the appearance of the clause , that is whether
signed by the parties on 4 December 1990. Under
                                                                                it must necessarily be in writing signed by the party
Article 13 of that contract, the parties agreed that
                                                                                who has drawn it up and who has therefore expressed
all disputes regarding the validity, interpretation and
                                                                                the intention of relying upon it — for example — by
application of the contract should be referred to the Court
                                                                                signing the bill of lading referring to a clause which
of Justice of the European Communities. The Commission
decided, in accordance with German law, to terminate the
                                                                                in turn refers to an agreement conferring exclusive
                                                                                jurisdiction, even in the absence of the signature of
contract by reason of the defendant's failure to implement
it .
                                                                                the other party (the shipper ).
                                                                                The second aspect consists in establishing whether it
                                                                                is necessary for the jurisdiction clause to stand out
                                                                                prominently on it own within the contract as a
                                                                                whole, or whether it is sufficient ( and therefore of no
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte Suprema                             consequence as regards the validity of the clause ) for
 di Cassazione by order of that court of 24 October 1996                            it to be inserted amongst numerous other clauses
 in the case of Societa Trasporti Castelletti Spedizioni                            drawn up in order to regulate the contract of carriage
           Internazionali SpA against Hugo Trumpy SpA                               in every respect.
                            ( Case C-159/97 )
                                                                                The third aspect relates to the language in which the
                                ( 97/C 212/ 18 )                                    clause is drawn up, that is to say, whether it must be
                                                                                in some way related to the nationality of the parties
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                              to the contract or whether it is sufficient for it to be a
 European Communities by order of the Corte Suprema di                               language regularly used in international trade or
 Cassazione ( Supreme Court of Cassation ) of 24 October                             commerce .
  1996, received at the Court Registry on 25 April 1997, for
 a preliminary ruling in the case of Societa Trasporti                        (c ) The third question is concerned with whether the
  Castelletti Spedizioni Internazionali SpA against Hugo                             court chosen must be in some way related to the
 Trumpy SpA on the following questions:                                              nationality and/or the residence of the parties to the
                                                                                contract or to the place of performance and/or
  ( a ) First question: In the case-law of the Court of Justice                      conclusion of the contract, provided that it is a court
         relating to the original wording of Article 17 ( ] )                        of a Contracting State, or whether the latter condition
         reference has been made to the need to ascertain and                        is sufficient without there being any other link with
         protect the actual will of the parties with regard to                       the substance of the relationship .
 ---pagebreak--- No C 212/ 10              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                          12 . 7 . 97
( d ) The fourth question concerns the process by which                 ( m ) The 11th question concerns the circumstances in
        usage comes into being; that is, whether consistent                      which insertion of the clause in question in a form
        incorporation of the clause in bills of lading issued by                 drawn up by one party but not signed by the other
        trade associations or a significant number of maritime                   party may be considered either an excessive burden
        transport undertakings is sufficient or whether it must                  on the latter or unlawful .
        be demonstrated that since users of such transport
        (whether traders or otherwise ) have not made any               ( n ) The 12th question involves ascertaining whether the
        observations or expressed reservations regarding                         party concerned was or ought to have been aware of
        consistent incorporation of the clause, they have                        the usage, other than with regard to the condition set
        tacitly acquiesced to the conduct of the other party,                     forth in paragraph (e ), above, as regards the bill of
        so that there may no longer be considered to be a                         lading itself, which contained numerous clauses
        dispute between them.                                                     appearing on the reserve ( paragraph ( b ), above ).
 ( e ) The fifth question concerns the form in which such
                                                                        ( o ) The 13th question involves identifying the person
        consistent practice is publicized, that is, whether the                   who is or ought to have been aware of the usage;
        bill of lading in which the jurisdiction clause is
                                                                                whether it must be the original shipper, even if he
        contained must be lodged at a particular office ( trade                   does not belong to a Contracting State ( such as, in
        association, chamber of commerce, port authorities,
                                                                                the present case, Argentina ), or whether it is sufficient
        and so on ) for consultation or must be brought to the                    for it to be the endorsee of the bill , who does belong
        notice of the public in some other way.
                                                                                to a Contracting State ( in the present case, Italy ).
 ( f) The sixth question concerns the validity of the clause,
        even where, by virtue of the substantive rules                   ( p ) The 14th question is concerned with whether the
        applicable in the chosen court, it takes the form of a                    phrase ' ought to have been aware' refers to the
        clause exempting the carrier from, or limiting, his                       criterion of good faith and objective lawfulness when
        liability.                                                                a particular contract was drawn up or to the criterion
                                                                                of ordinary care on the part of individuals who must
                                                                                be fully informed of current practices in international
 (g) The seventh question is concerned with whether the                           trade, for the purposes of paragraph ( i ), above .
        court ( other than the chosen court) which has been
        called upon to assess the validity of the clause may             (') Article 17 of the Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968 as
         examine the reasons for it, that is to say, the intention             amended by the Convention relating to the accession of the
         of the carrier in the choice of court made, as distinct               Kingdom of Denmark, of Ireland and of the United Kingdom
         from the court which would have had jurisdiction                      of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, signed at Luxembourg
         according to the usual criteria laid down in the                      on 9 October 1978 ( OJ No L 304, 30. 10 . 1978 , p. 1 ).
         Brussels Convention or by the lex fori.                         ( 2 ) [ 1984] ECR, p . 2417 .
  ( h ) The eighth question consists in ascertaining whether
         the fact that many shippers and/or endorsees of bills
         of lading have challenged the validity of the clause by
         bringing an action before a court other than that
         designated in the clause itself is indicative of the fact       Appeal brought on 25 April 1997 by Kernkraftwerke
         that usage regarding the insertion of the clause in             Lippe-Ems GmbH against the judgment delivered on
         forms has not become well established .                         25 February 1997 by the Court of First Instance of
                                                                          the European Communities (First Chamber, Extended
  (i )   The ninth question consists in ascertaining whether              Composition ) in Joined Cases T-149/94 and T-181/94
         the usage must exist in all the countries of the                           between Kernkraftwerke Lippe-Ems GmbH and
         European Community or whether the expression                                 Commission of the European Communities
         ' international trade or commerce ' is intended to meari                                   Case C-161 /97 P )
         that it is sufficient for the usage to be practised in
                                                                                ( 97/C 212/ 19 )
         those countries which, in the context of international
         trade or commerce, have traditionally played a
         prominent role.                                                  An appeal against the judgment delivered on 25 February
                                                                          1997 by the Court of First Instance of the European
   (1 )  The 10th question consists in ascertaining whether               Communities (First Chamber, Extended Composition )
         the usage in question may derogate from mandatory                in Joined Cases T-149/94 and T-181 /94 between
          statutory provisions of individual States, such as, in          Kernkraftwerke Lippe-Ems GmbH and Commission of the
         Italy, Article 1341 of the Civil Code which, with                European Communities was brought before the Court of
          regard    to the general contractual terms and                  Justice of the European Communities on 25 April 1997 by
          conditions drawn up by one of the parties, provides             Kernkraftwerke Lippe-Ems GmbH, represented by Bernd
          that, in order for the usage to be valid, the other             Kunth , Gerhard Wiedemann and Helmut Nicolaus,
          party must be or ought to have been aware of it and              Rechtsanwalte, of Kanzlei Bruckhaus Westrick Stegemann,
          provides that clauses laying down particular                     Diisseldorf, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
          limitations to or derogating from the jurisdiction of            the Chambers of Alex Bonn , 22 Cote d'Eich, L-1450
          the courts must be specifically approved.                        Luxembourg.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 14 July 1995 in Case T-291/94: Zudella Patricia Pimley-Smith v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Competitions - Decision of the Selection Board stating that a candidate has failed the oral tests - Extent of the duty to provide a statement of reasons - Extent to which the Court may exercise its powers of review in the absence of any infringement of the procedural rules)

text:
No C 268/22           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    14 . 10 . 95
Decision 92/212/EEC of 25 March 1992 relating to a                   2 , orders each of the parties to bear its own costs.
proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the EEC Treaty
( IV/30.717-A — Eurocheque : Helsinki Agreement, OJ No               (M OJ No C 351 , 10 . 12 . 1994 .
L 95 , 1992 , p. 50 ), that amount having been set at ECU
2 000 000 by the judgment delivered by the Court of First
Instance on 23 February 1994 in Joined Cases T-39/92 and
T-40/92 Groupement des Cartes Bancaires ' CB' and
Europay International SA v. Commission [ 1994] ECR II,
p . 49, and in which it applied the ECU 2 000 000 paid by the
applicant first against the interest and then against the             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
principal sum of the fine plus default interest — the Court of                           of 13 September 1995
First Instance ( Fourth Chamber, extended composition ),
composed of K. Lenaerts, President, R. Schintgen, R.                 in Case T-276/94 : Adam Buick v. Commission of the
Garcia-Valdecasas, P. Lindh and J. Azizi, Judges; J. Palacio                           European Communities (')
Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a              (Officials     —    Leave on personal grounds                  —
judgment on 14 July 1995 , in which it:                                                       Reinstatement)
                                                                                ( 95/C 268/48 )
1 , dismisses the application;
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
2 , orders the applicant to bear the costs.
                                                                     In Case T-276/94 : Adam Buick, an official of the
(') OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994 .                                    Commission of the European Communities, currently on
                                                                     leave on personal grounds, resident in London, represented
                                                                     by Jean-Noël Louis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
                                                                     service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
                                                                     SARL, 1 rue Glesener, against Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities ( Agent: Ana Maria Alves Vieira ) —
                                                                     application, first, for the annulment of the Commission's
                                                                     decision not to reinstate the applicant to the post at grade
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             A 7/A 4 ( COM/ 1816/93 ) declared vacant in the ' G-24
                                                                     Coordination Unit ' of the Directorate-General for External
                         of 14 July 1995
                                                                     Economic Relations and, secondly, for damages — the
in Case T-291 /94: Zudella Patricia Pimley-Smith v.                  Court of First Instance (Third Chamber ), composed of J.
        Commission of the European Communities ( ] )                 Biancarelli ( President of the Chamber ), C. P. Briët and C. W.
 (Officials — Competitions — Decision of the Selection               Bellamy, Judges; B. Pastor, Administrator, for the Registrar,
Board stating that a candidate has failed the oral tests —           has given a judgment on 13 September 1995 , in which
 Extent of the duty to provide a statement of reasons —              it :
Extent to which the Court may exercise its powers ofreview
 in the absence of any infringement of the procedural                 1 , annuls the Commission's decision not to reinstate the
                               rules)                                     applicant to the post at grade A 7/A 4 (COM/1816/93)
                          ( 95/C 268/47 )                                 declared vacant in the ' G-24 Coordination Unit ' of
                                                                          D G I;
                (Language of the case: French)                       2 , orders the Commission to compensate the applicant for
                                                                          the material damage directly suffered by him as the
                                                                          result of the adoption of the annulled decision;
 In Case T-291 /94 , Zudella Patricia Pimley-Smith, resident in
 Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure              3 , orders the parties to notify to the Court ofFirst Instance,
 Levi, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                within three months from the date of notification of this
 Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 1 rue Glesener v.                   judgment, the amount of principal and interest to be
 Commission of the European Communities ( Agent:                          paid to the applicant by way of compensation, if such
 Gianluigi Valsesia ) — application for the annulment of the              agreement is reached;
 decision of the Selection Board in Open Competition
 EUR/B/30, notified to the applicant on 29 November 1993 ,            4 , orders the parties, in default of agreement, to present
 not to include her name in the list of successful candidates             submissions to the Court ofFirst Instance, supported by
 and, in so far as necessary, the annulment of the                        figures, within the same period;
 Commission decision of 21 June 1994 rejecting the
 applicant's complaint — the Court of First Instance ( Second         5 , reserves the costs .
 Chamber ), composed of D. P. M. Barrington, acting as
 President, A. Saggio and V. Tiili , Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
 has given a judgment on 14 July 1995 , in which it:                  (') OJ No C 304 , 29 . 10 . 1994 .
  1 , dismisses the application;


title: Case T-67/11: Action brought on 24 January 2011 — Martinair Holland v Commission

text:
               26.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/9

         Action brought on 24 January 2011 — Martinair Holland v Commission
   (Case T-67/11)
   2011/C 95/15
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Martinair Holland NV (Haarlemmermeer, the Netherlands) (represented by: R. Wesseling, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the decision in whole or in part, or

               —

               reduce the fines imposed by Article 5 of the decision, and

               —

               condemn the Commission to the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Application under Articles 263 and 261 TFEU and Article 31 of Regulation 1/2003 for the review and annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39.258 — Airfreight) addressed to Martinair Holland N.V. and, in subsidiary order, for the reduction of the fine imposed.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that:

                           —

                           the Commission violated its duty to state reasons pursuant to Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter (the right to good administration) insofar as it is not possible to ascertain from the decision the nature and scope of the infringement(s); on the one hand, the operative part of the decision clearly identifies four (presumably single and continuous) infringements relating to distinct sets of addressees, different time periods and geographic routes. On the other hand, the statement of reasons is not based on nor refers to any of these four specific infringements;

                           —

                           to the extent the Court is unable to review in full the grounds underlying the decision due to the deficiency of (sufficiently clear) reasoning, the Commission violated essential procedural rights of the applicant; in particular, the applicant submits that the decision breaches the right to good administration; the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence and rights of defense pursuant to Articles 41, 47, and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed manifest errors of assessment in the calculation of the fine in violation of Regulation 1/2003 (1), the fining guidelines and violated the principles of proportionality, equal treatment and the duty to state reasons contrary to Articles 41 and 49 of the Charter on Human Right of the European Union, Article 296 TFEU and other general principles of EU law. In this regard, the applicant argues that:

                           —

                           first, the Commission committed manifest errors of assessment in violation of the fining guidelines and the principles of proportionality and equal treatment, by including turnover related to the rates and inbound flights in the calculation of the value of sales;

                           —

                           second, the Commission committed manifest errors in the assessment of the gravity of the infringement in violation of Regulation 1/2003, the fining guidelines and the principle of proportionality;

                           —

                           third, the Commission violated Regulation 1/2003, the fining guidelines and the principle of proportionality in taking into account the regulatory regimes as mitigating circumstance to only reduce the fine by 15 %;

                           —

                           fourth, the Commission violated its duty to state reasons in relation to the calculation of the fine contrary to Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty, OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1


title: Case C– 215/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Østre Landsret by order of 14 May 2004 in the case of Marius Pedersen A/S v Miljøstyrelsen

text:
               24.7.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Østre Landsret by order of 14 May 2004 in the case of Marius Pedersen A/S v Miljøstyrelsen
   (Case C– 215/04)
   (2004/C 190/12)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of 14 May 2004 of the Østre Landsret (Eastern Regional Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 21 May 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Marius Pedersen A/S v Miljøstyrelsen on the following questions:

               1.

               Must the expression ‘where this is not possible’ in Article 2(g)(ii) of Regulation No 259/93 (1) be understood as meaning that an approved collection undertaking cannot automatically be the notifier of exports of waste for recycling?
               If the answer is in the affirmative: which criteria determine whether an approved collection undertaking can be the notifier of exports of waste for recycling?
               May the criterion be that the waste producer is unknown or that there are so many waste producers, the individual contribution of each of which is so modest that it would be unreasonable for each individually to be required to notify the exportation of the waste?

               2.

               Does Article 7(2) of Regulation No 259/93, in conjunction with Article 7(4)(a), first and second indents in particular, provide a possibility for the competent authorities of the country of dispatch to raise an objection against a specific request for authorisation to export waste for the purpose of recycling if there is no information from the notifier that the recipient plant's treatment of the waste in question will, from the environmental point of view, be of the same standard as is required under national rules in the country of dispatch?

               3.

               Must the first indent of Article 6(5) of Regulation No 259/93 be construed as meaning that the requirement as to information on the composition of the waste may be regarded as being satisfied if the notifier indicates that the waste in question is of only one specific kind, for example, ‘electronic scrap’?

               4.

               Must Article 7(1) and (2) of Regulation No 259/93 be construed as meaning that the period in Article 7(2) begins to run when the competent authority of destination has sent the acknowledgement, irrespective of the fact that the competent authority of dispatch does not consider that it has received all of the information set out in Article 6(5)?
               If the answer is in the negative: what information must a notification contain before the 30-day period indicated in Article 7(2) can begin to run?
               Does the fact of having exceeded the 30-day period for reply have the effect in law that the authority cannot raise further objections or request further information?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community (OJ 1993 L 30, p. 1).


title: Case T-143/13: Order of the General Court of 23 April 2013 — Zhejiang Heda Solar Technology v Commission

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/40

         Order of the General Court of 23 April 2013 — Zhejiang Heda Solar Technology v Commission
   (Case T-143/13) (1)

   2013/C 171/83
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 123, 27.4.2013.


title: Case T-75/14: Action brought on 23 January 2014  — USFSPEI v Parliament and Council

text:
               24.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/26

         Action brought on 23 January 2014 — USFSPEI v Parliament and Council
   (Case T-75/14)
   2014/C 194/34
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Union syndicale fédérale des services publics européens et internationaux (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.-N. Louis and D. de Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union and European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the present action admissible and well founded;

               —

               accordingly, annul points 27, 32, 46, 64(b), 65(b) and 67(d) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1023/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013;

               —

               order the defendants to pay to USF a symbolic sum of EUR 1 to compensate for the non-material harm suffered and to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant invokes the unlawfulness of points 27, 32, 46, 64(b), 65(b) and 67(d) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1023/2013 (1) in so far as they amend, inter alia, Article 5 (creation of the SC function group), Article 6 (elimination of the guarantee of career equivalence), Article 40(2) (restriction of CCP to 12 years), the second paragraph of Article 43 (indication of potential to carry out an administrator’s function starting from grade AST 5 instead of AST), Article 44(1) (new conditions for advancement to a higher step), Article 51 (professional incompetence procedure), Article 52 (leave in the interests of the service), Article 77 (pension accrual rate of 1,8 %), and Annex VIII, Article 9(2) (early retirement without penalty) of the Staff Regulations.
   In support of its action, it invokes the infringement of the agreement between the OSP and the legislator on the 2004 reform, in particular on the reform of careers, the principles of a linear career structure and equivalence of careers.
   It also invokes breach of Article 27 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and of Article 21 of the European Social Charter, infringement of the principle of acquired rights, the principle of proportionality and the principle of non-discrimination.

      (1)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1023/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 15).


title: Case T-533/13: Order of the General Court of 10 June 2016 — Lithuania v Commission

text:
               22.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/53

         Order of the General Court of 10 June 2016 — Lithuania v Commission
   (Case T-533/13) (1)

   (2016/C 305/71)
   Language of the case: Lithuanian
   The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 359, 7.12.2013.


title: Case T-96/12: Order of the General Court of 16 October 2012 — Kingdom of Spain v Commission

text:
               1.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 373/13

         Order of the General Court of 16 October 2012 — Kingdom of Spain v Commission
   (Case T-96/12) (1)

   2012/C 373/24
   Language of the case: Spanish
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 109, 14.4.2012.


title: Case T-413/12: Action brought on 20 September 2012 — Post Invest Europe v Commission

text:
               10.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/21

         Action brought on 20 September 2012 — Post Invest Europe v Commission
   (Case T-413/12)
   2012/C 343/35
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Post Invest Europe Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: B. van de Walle de Ghelcke and T. Franchoo, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Articles 2, 5, 6 and 7 of the Commission Decision of 25 January 2012 on the measure SA.14588 (C 20/2009) implemented by Belgium in favour of De Post-La Poste (now bpost), which was published in the Official Journal of the EU on 29 June 2012 (OJ 2012 L 170, p. 1);

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s finding that the retail network was not a distinct Service of General Economic Interest (‘SGEI’) entitled to compensation breaches Articles 106(2), 107(1) and 107(3) TFEU, constitutes a manifest error of assessment and violates the principle of equal treatment.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s failure to take into account part of the Universal Service Obligation (‘USO’) — induced retail network costs when calculating the amount of profits in the USO reserved area, which are above the level of a reasonable profit, breaches Articles 106(2), 107(1) and 107(3) TFEU and constitutes a manifest error of assessment.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s finding that net costs of non-mail SGEI’s must be offset with the profits from the USO reserved area, inasmuch as they exceed a reasonable profit, breaches Articles 107 and 106(2) TFEU and infringes the principles of proportionality and equal treatment.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that breach of Articles 107 and 106(2) TFEU and infringement of the principle of non-retroactivity, by reason of the complete failure to carry forward bpost’s undercompensation accumulated over the years 1992-2005 to offset the amounts of bpost’s alleged overcompensation over the period 2006-2010.


title: Case C-365/13: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 30 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — Ordre des architectes v État belge (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2005/36/EC — Articles 21 and 49 — Recognition of professional qualifications — Access to the profession of architect — Exemption from professional traineeship)

text:
               24.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/9

         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 30 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — Ordre des architectes v État belge
   (Case C-365/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2005/36/EC - Articles 21 and 49 - Recognition of professional qualifications - Access to the profession of architect - Exemption from professional traineeship))
   2014/C 194/10
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ordre des architectes

      Defendant: État belge

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d’État (Belgium) — Interpretation of Articles 21, 46 and 49 of Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22) — Access to and pursuit of the profession of architect — Enrolment in the Ordre des architectes — National legislation restricting enrolment to holders of evidence of formal qualifications issued in Belgium on completion of a professional traineeship of a 2 year duration — Prohibition on requiring holders of an architect’s diploma obtained in another Member State to have completed such a traineeship or to have equivalent experience

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 21 and 49 of Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 279/2009 of 6 April 2009, must be interpreted as precluding the host Member State from requiring the holder of a professional qualification obtained in the home Member State and listed in point 5.7.1 of Annex V, or in Annex VI, to that directive to undertake a traineeship, or to prove that he possesses equivalent professional experience, in order to be authorised to practise the profession of architect.

      (1)  OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.


title: Case C-244/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 21 May 2012 — Salzburger Flughafen GmbH v Umweltsenat

text:
               4.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 21 May 2012 — Salzburger Flughafen GmbH v Umweltsenat
   (Case C-244/12)
   2012/C 235/13
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Salzburger Flughafen GmbH

      Defendant: Umweltsenat

      Party: Landesumweltanwalt von Salzburg

      Further party: Bundesministerin für Verkehr, Innovation und Technologie

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985, (1) as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, (2) preclude a national rule by which it is established that an environmental impact assessment for infrastructure works (not concerning the runway) at an airport, that is the construction of a terminal and the extension of the airport site to construct further facilities (in particular hangars, equipment buildings and parking areas), shall only be carried out if the annual number of aircraft movements is anticipated to increase by no less than 20 000?
               In the event that Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:

               2.

               In the absence of relevant national provisions, does Directive 85/337 require and allow for the direct application of its provisions to assess (taking due account of the objectives thereby pursued and the criteria set out in Annex III thereto) the environmental impact of a project — specified in Question 1 — which is covered by Annex II?

      (1)  Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40.

      (2)  Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5.


title: Case F-94/08: Action brought on 19 November 2008 — Marcuccio v Commission

text:
               10.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/46

         Action brought on 19 November 2008 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case F-94/08)
   (2009/C 6/94)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

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

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Annulment of a note by which the Commission announced its intention to recover a credit relating to procedural costs through a deduction from the invalidity pension paid to the applicant, and an application for damages for the non-pecuniary loss caused by that act.
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of the note dated 28 March 2008 and also the contested decision;

               —

               Annulment, in so far as necessary, of the decision to reject the claim dated 19 April 2008;

               —

               Annulment, in so far as necessary, of the note dated 11 August 2008;

               —

               Order the European Commission to compensate the applicant for the non-pecuniary loss caused by the acts annulment of which is sought by the present action, in the amount of EUR 10 000 or such higher or lesser amount as the Court considers appropriate and equitable;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case C-529/09: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 24 January 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — State aid incompatible with the common market — Obligation of recovery — Failure to comply with a Commission Decision — Objection of inadmissibility — Res judicata by means of a previous judgment of the Court)

text:
               9.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/2

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 24 January 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-529/09) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - State aid incompatible with the common market - Obligation of recovery - Failure to comply with a Commission Decision - Objection of inadmissibility - Res judicata by means of a previous judgment of the Court)
   2013/C 71/02
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents)

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

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 288 TFEU and of Articles 2 and 3 of Commission Decision 1999/509/EC of 14 October 1998 concerning aid granted by Spain to companies in the Magefesa group and their successors (OJ 1999 L 198, p. 15) — Aid granted to Industrias Domésticas, S.A. (Indosa)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Commission Decision 1999/509/EC of 14 October 1998 concerning aid granted by Spain to companies in the Magefesa group and their successors, as regards the undertaking Industrias Domésticas SA, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under the fourth paragraph of Article 288 TFEU and under Articles 2 and 3 of that decision.

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 51, 27.2.2010.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura Circondariale di Roma - Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli - by order of that court of 9 June 1995 in the criminal proceedings against Giancarlo Pezzola (Case C-296/96)

text:
26 . 10 . 96         I EN 1                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 318/7
may not be added to the ' Register of protected                            service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la
designations'.                                                             Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
(') OJ No L 148 , 21 . 6 . 1996 , p . 1 .                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
( 2 ) OJ No L 208 , 24 . 7 . 1992 , p . 1 .
(•') OJ No L 184, 27 . 7. 1993 , p . 1 .                                   — declare that, by not adopting within the prescribed
                                                                                period the laws, regulations and administrative
                                                                                provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
                                                                                93/76/EEC of 13 September 1993 to limit carbon
                                                                                dioxide emissions by improving energy efficiency
Action brought on 9 September 1996 by the Commission of                          ( SAVE )( 1 ) and, in any event, by not communicating
the European Communities against the Kingdom of                                  those measures to the Commission, the Kingdom of
                                  Belgium                                        Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
                                                                                Directive,
                            Case C-294/96 )
                             ( 96/C 318/ 12 )                              — order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
9 September 1996 by the Commission of the European                         The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
Communities, represented by Hendrik van Lier and                           put forward in Case C-294/96 ( 2 ); the period prescribed by
                                                                           the Directive expired on 31 December 1994 .
Jean-Francis Pasquier, acting as Agents, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la
                                                                           (') OJ No L 237, 22 . 9 . 1993 , p. 28 .
Cruz, of the Commission's Legal Service, Wagner Centre,                    ( 2 ) See page 7 of this ed . Official Journal .
Kirchberg.
The applicant claims that the Court should :
— declare that the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil
      its obligations under the EC Treaty by not adopting                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura
      within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and               Circondariale di Roma — Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli — by
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with                   order of that court of 9 June 1995 in the criminal
      Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993                                       proceedings against Giancarlo Pezzola
      concerning medical devices ('),                                                                ( Case C-296/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 318/ 14 )
— order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support                         European Communities by order of the Pretura
                                                                           Circondariale di Roma — Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli
The binding character of the third paragraph of Article 189                ( Rome District Magistrates' Court — Tivoli Division ) of
of the EC Treaty places Member States to whom Directives                   9 June 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on
are addressed under an obligation to adopt the measures                    9 September 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the criminal
necessary to comply with those Directives within the time                  proceedings against Giancarlo Pezzola on questions
limits set therein for their implementation. In the present                identical to those submitted in Joined Cases C-58/95 and
case, when the period prescribed by Directive 93/42/EEC                    C-75/95 ( 1 ).
expired on 1 July 1994 , the Kingdom of Belgium had not
adopted the necessary measures .                                           (') See OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 , p . 6 .
 (') OJ No L 169 , 12 . 7 . 1993 , p . 1 .
                                                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by a Social Security
                                                                           Commissioner, by Decision of 2 September 1996, in the case
Action brought on 9 September 1996 by the Commission of                    of Mrs Vera A. Partridge against the Adjudication
the European Communities against the Kingdom of                                                              Officer
                                  Belgium                                                            ( Case C-297/96 )
                            Case C-295 /96
                                                                                ( 96/C 318/15 )
                              ( 96/C 318 / 13 )
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                       European Communities by decision of a Social Security
 before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                 Commissioner, of 2 September 1996 , which was received at
 9 September 1996 by the Commission of the European                        the Court Registry on 1 1 September 1996 , for a preliminary
 Communities, represented by Hendrik van Lier and                          ruling in the case of Mrs Vera A. Partridge against the
Jean-Francis Pasquier, acting as Agents, with an address for               Adjudication Officer, on the following question :


title: Case T-486/10 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 17 February 2011 — Iberdrola v Commission (Interim measures — State aid — Compensation for the additional production costs of certain power plants arising from the public service obligation to produce certain volumes of electricity out of indigenous coal and implementation of a ‘preferential dispatch mechanism’ in their favour — Decision not to raise objections — Application for suspension of operation — Prima facie case — Lack of urgency — Weighing of the interests)

text:
               21.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 152/22

         Order of the President of the General Court of 17 February 2011 — Iberdrola v Commission
   (Case T-486/10 R)
   (Interim measures - State aid - Compensation for the additional production costs of certain power plants arising from the public service obligation to produce certain volumes of electricity out of indigenous coal and implementation of a ‘preferential dispatch mechanism’ in their favour - Decision not to raise objections - Application for suspension of operation - Prima facie case - Lack of urgency - Weighing of the interests)
   2011/C 152/41
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Iberdrola, SA (Bilbao, Spain) (represented by: J. Ruiz Calzado and É. Barbier de la Serre, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: J.M. Rodríguez Cárcamo, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Application for interim measures seeking, in essence, an order for the suspension of operation of Commission Decision C(2010) 4499 of 29 September 2010 relating to State aid No N 178/2010 notified by the Kingdom of Spain in the form of a public service compensation linked to a preferential dispatch mechanism in favour of electricity power plants which use indigenous coal

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               E.ON Generación, SL, Hidroeléctrica del Cantábrico SA and the Federación Nacional de Empresarios de Minas de Carbón are granted leave to intervene in support of the form of order sought by the European Commission.

               2.

               The order of the President of the General Court of 3 November 2010 in Case T-486/10 R Iberdrola v Commission, not published in the ECR, is cancelled.

               3.

               A period shall be fixed for Iberdrola, the Commission and the Kingdom of Spain to request that certain confidential information in the file and in the present order be excluded from communication to the parties referred to in point 1 of this operative part and to provide, for the purposes of that communication, a non-confidential version of the documents in the file and of the present order.

               4.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Joined Cases T-230/01 to T-232/01 and T-267/01 to T-269/01: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 September 2009 — Diputación Foral de Álava and Others v Commission (State aid — Tax advantages granted by a territorial entity within a Member State — Reduction of the tax base for corporation tax — Decisions declaring aid schemes incompatible with the common market and requiring recovery of aid paid out — Trade association — Admissibility — Withdrawal of a plea in law — Classification as new aid or as existing aid — Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations — Principle of legal certainty — Principle of proportionality)

text:
               24.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/20

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 September 2009 — Diputación Foral de Álava and Others v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-230/01 to T-232/01 and T-267/01 to T-269/01) (1)

   (State aid - Tax advantages granted by a territorial entity within a Member State - Reduction of the tax base for corporation tax - Decisions declaring aid schemes incompatible with the common market and requiring recovery of aid paid out - Trade association - Admissibility - Withdrawal of a plea in law - Classification as new aid or as existing aid - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations - Principle of legal certainty - Principle of proportionality)
   2009/C 256/34
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants in Case T-230/01: Territorio Histórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava (Spain); and Comunidad autónoma del País Vasco — Gobierno Vasco (Spain) (represented initially by: R. Falcón Tella, and subsequently by M. Morales Isasi and I. Sáenz-Cortabarría Fernández, lawyers)

      Applicants in Case T-231/01: Territorio Histórico de Vizcaya — Diputación Foral de Vizcaya (Spain); and Comunidad autónoma del País Vasco — Gobierno Vasco (represented initially by: R. Falcón Tella, and subsequently by M. Morales Isasi and I. Sáenz-Cortabarría Fernández, lawyers)

      Applicants in Case T-232/01: Territorio Histórico de Guipúzcoa — Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa (Spain); and Comunidad autónoma del País Vasco — Gobierno Vasco (represented initially by: R. Falcón Tella, and subsequently by M. Morales Isasi and I. Sáenz-Cortabarría Fernández, lawyers)

      Applicant in Cases T-267/01 to T-269/01: Confederación Empresarial Vasca (Confebask) (Bilbao, Spain) (represented by: M. Araujo Boyd, L. Ortiz Blanco and V. Sopeña Blanco, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented initially by: J. Buendía Sierra, and subsequently by F. Castillo de la Torre and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicants in Case T-230/01: Cámara Oficial de Comercio e Industria de Álava (Spain) (represented by: I. Sáenz-Cortabarría Fernández and M. Morales Isasi, lawyers); and Confederación Empresarial Vasca (Confebask) (Bilbao) (represented initially by: M. Araujo Boyd and R. Sanz, and subsequently by Araujo Boyd, L. Ortiz Blanco and V. Sopeña Blanco, lawyers)

      Interveners in support of the applicants in Case T-231/01: Cámara Oficial de Comercio, Industria y Navegación de Vizcaya (Spain) (represented by: I. Sáenz-Cortabarría Fernández and M. Morales Isasi, lawyers); and Confederación Empresarial Vasca (Confebask) (Bilbao) (represented initially by: M. Araujo Boyd and R. Sanz, and subsequently by Araujo Boyd, L. Ortiz Blanco and V. Sopeña Blanco, lawyers)

      Interveners in support of the applicants in Case T-232/01: Cámara Oficial de Comercio, Industria y Navegación de Guipúzcoa (Spain) (represented by: I. Sáenz-Cortabarría Fernández and M. Morales Isasi, lawyers); and Confederación Empresarial Vasca (Confebask) (Bilbao) (represented initially by: M. Araujo Boyd and R. Sanz, and subsequently by Araujo Boyd, L. Ortiz Blanco and V. Sopeña Blanco, lawyers)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Comunidad Autónoma de la Rioja (Spain) (represented initially by: A. Bretón Rodríguez, J. Criado Gámez and I. Serrano Blanco, lawyers)

      Re:
   Application in Cases T-230/01 and T-267/01 for annulment of Commission Decision 2002/892/EC of 11 July 2001 on the State aid scheme applied by Spain to certain newly established firms in Álava (OJ 2002 L 314, p. 1); application in Cases T-231/01 and T-268/01 for annulment of Commission Decision 2002/806/EC of 11 July 2001 on the State aid scheme applied by Spain to certain newly established firms in Vizcaya (OJ 2002 L 279, p. 35), and application in Cases T-232/01 and T-269/01 for annulment of the Commission decision 2002/894/EC of 11 July 2001 on the State aid scheme applied by Spain to certain newly established firms in Guipúzcoa (OJ 2002 L 174, p. 31).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Joins Cases T-230/01 to T-231/01, T-232/01, T-267/01, T-268/01 and T-269/01 for the purposes of judgment.

               2.

               Dismisses the actions.

               3.

               In Cases T-230/01 to T-232/01:

                           —

                           Orders the Territorio Histórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava, the Territorio Histórico de Vizcaya — Diputación Foral de Vizcaya, the Territorio Histórico de Guipúzcoa — Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa and the Comunidad autónoma del País Vasco — Gobierno Vasco to each bear their own costs and to pay the costs of the Commission and the Comunidad autónoma de La Rioja;

                           —

                           Orders the Confederación Empresarial Vasca (Confebask), the Cámara Oficial de Comercio e Industria de Álava, the Cámara Oficial de Comercio, Industria y Navegación de Vizcaya and the Cámara Oficial de Comercio, Industria y Navegación de Guipúzcoa to each bear their own costs.

               4.

               In Cases T-267/01 to T-269/01 orders Confebask to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the Commission and the Comunidad autónoma de La Rioja.

      (1)  OJ C 348, 8.12.2001.


title: Case C-452/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 December 2012 — Heineken Nederland BV, Heineken NV v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Dutch beer market — Commission decision establishing a breach of Article 81 EC — Fines — Duration of the administrative procedure — Level of the fine)

text:
               16.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/10

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 December 2012 — Heineken Nederland BV, Heineken NV v European Commission
   (Case C-452/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Dutch beer market - Commission decision establishing a breach of Article 81 EC - Fines - Duration of the administrative procedure - Level of the fine)
   2013/C 46/17
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Appellants: Heineken Nederland BV, Heineken NV (represented by: T. Ottervanger and M. de Jong, advocaten)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: P. Van Nuffel and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, Agents, and by M. Slotboom, advocat)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) on 16 June 2011 in Case T-240/07 Heineken Nederland and Heineken v Commission, by which the General Court annulled Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2007) 1697 of 18 April 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/B/37.766 — Dutch beer market) in so far as the European Commission found that Heineken NV and Heineken Nederland BV had participated in an infringement consisting in the occasional coordination of commercial conditions, other than prices, offered to individual consumers in the ‘on-trade’ sector in the Netherlands

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Heineken Nederland BV and Heineken NV to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 340, 19.11.2011.


title: Order of the Court of 2 May 2001 in Case C-307/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg, Germany): OGT Fruchthandelsgesellschaft mbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-St. Annen (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Bananas — Common organisation of the market — GATT — Direct effect — First paragraph of Article 234 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, first paragraph of Article 307 EC))

text:
14.7.2001                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 200/37
An action for rescission of a contract for the sale of land and            Articles I and XIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
consequential damages is not within the scope of the rules on exclusive    1994, in Annex 1A to the Agreement establishing the World Trade
jurisdiction in proceedings which have as their object rights in rem       Organisation, approved on behalf of the European Community, as
in immovable property under Article 16(1) of the Convention of             regards matters within its competence, by Council Decision
27 September 1968 between the Member States of the European                94/800/EC of 22 December 1994, are not such as to create rights
Economic Community on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judg-            which individuals may rely on directly before a national court in order
ments in civil and commercial matters, as amended by the Convention        to oppose the application of the second subparagraph of Article
of 9 October 1978 on the accession of the Kingdom of Denmark,              18(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 of 13 February
Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern               1993 on the common organisation of the market in bananas, as
Ireland and by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the accession          amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1637/98 of 20 July 1998.
of the Hellenic Republic.
(1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000                                                    (1) OJ C 299 of 16.10.1999
                     ORDER OF THE COURT
                            of 2 May 2001
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
in Case C-307/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Finanzgericht Hamburg, Germany): OGT Fruchthand-                                                (Fifth Chamber)
elsgesellschaft mbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-St. Ann-
                                 en (1)
                                                                                of 10 May 2001
(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Bananas —
Common organisation of the market — GATT — Direct
effect — First paragraph of Article 234 of the EC Treaty                   in Case C-345/00 P: Fédération Nationale d’Agriculture
 (now, after amendment, first paragraph of Article 307 EC))                Biologique des Régions de France (FNAB) and Others v
                                                                                Council of the European Union (1)
                           (2001/C 200/67)
                                                                           (Appeal — Regulation (EEC) No 1804/1999 — Prohibition
                                                                           of using indications suggesting an organic method of pro-
                   (Language of the case: German)                          duction in the labelling and advertising of products not
                                                                           obtained by that production method — Temporary dero-
                                                                           gation for existing trade-marks — Application for annul-
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published        ment — Inadmissible — Appeal manifestly unfounded)
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (2001/C 200/68)
In Case C-307/99: reference to the Court under Article 234
EC from the Finanzgericht (Finance Court) Hamburg for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between OGT Fruchthandelsgesellschaft mbH and                                            (Language of the case: French)
Hauptzollamt Hamburg-St. Annen — on the interpretation of
Articles I and XIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade 1994, in Annex 1A to the Agreement establishing the
World Trade Organisation, approved on behalf of the Euro-                  (Provisional translation: the definitive translation will be published
pean Community, as regards matters within its competence,                                 in the Reports of Cases before the Court)
by Council Decision 94/800/EC of 22 December 1994 (OJ
1994 L 336, p. 1) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez
Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet and            In Case C-345/00 P Fédération Nationale d’Agriculture Biolo-
V. Skouris (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward,                        gique des Régions de France (FNAB), established in Paris,
J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevón, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur),           France, Syndicat Européen des Transformateurs et Distrib-
F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and              uteurs de Produits de l’Agriculture Biologique (SETRAB),
C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General;                   established in Paris, France, Est Distribution Biogam Sàrl,
R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 2 May 2001, in                   established in Château-Salins, France, represented by the
which it has ruled:                                                        lawyer D. Leermakers and C. Hatton, Solicitor, with an address


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 March 2001 in Case C-316/99: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 96/43/EC — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
16.6.2001                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 173/17
National legislation such as Article C.11.1(1) of the Besluit radio-        1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed periods,
elektrische inrichtingen, which prohibits commercial advertising for              all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary
transmitting equipment of a non-approved type, does not constitute,               to comply with the provisions referred to in the first subpara-
for the purposes of Council Directive 83/189/EEC of 28 March                      graph of Article 4(1) of Council Directive 96/43/EC of 26 June
1983 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in                  1996 amending and consolidating Directive 85/73/EEC in
the field of technical standards and regulations, a technical regulation          order to ensure financing of veterinary inspections and controls
which should have been notified to the Commission prior to its                    on live animals and certain animal products and amending
adoption.                                                                         Directives 90/675/EEC and 91/496/EEC, the Federal Repub-
                                                                                lic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
                                                                                subparagraph;
(1) OJ C 265 of 18.9.1999.
                                                                            2.    Dismisses the remainder of the action;
                                                                            3.    Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 299 of 16.10.1999.
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (First Chamber)                                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           of 8 March 2001                                                            (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                                of 8 March 2001
in Case C-316/99: Commission of the European Communi-
              ties v Federal Republic of Germany(1)
                                                                            in Case C-97/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v French Republic (1)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Directive 96/43/EC — Failure to transpose within the                        (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
                           prescribed period)                                                to transpose Directive 97/52/EC)
                            (2001/C 173/28)                                                             (2001/C 173/29)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            In Case C-97/00: Commission of the European Communities
                                                                            (Agent: M. Nolin) v French Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-
In Case C-316/99: Commission of the European Communities                    Bellanger and S. Pailler) — application for a declaration
(Agent: K.-D. Borchardt) v Federal Republic of Germany                      that, by failing to communicate the laws, regulations and
(Agents: W.-D. Plessing and C.-D. Quassowski) — application                 administrative provisions necessary to comply with all the
for declaration that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed             provisions of European Parliament and Council Directive
period all the measures necessary to comply with Council                    97/52/EC of 13 October 1997 amending Directives
Directive 96/43/EC of 26 June 1996 amending and consolidat-                 92/50/EEC, 93/36/EEC and 93/37/EEC concerning the coordi-
ing Directive 85/73/EEC in order to ensure financing of the                 nation of procedures for the award of public service contracts,
veterinary inspections and controls on live animals and certain             public supply contracts and public works contracts respectively
animal products and amending Directives 90/675/EEC and                      (OJ 1997 L 328, p. 1), or by failing to adopt the measures
91/496/EEC (OJ 1996 L 162, p. 1), the Federal Republic of                   necessary to comply therewith, the French Republic has failed
Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty            to fulfil its obligations under that directive — the Court (Fourth
and that directive — the Court (First Chamber), composed of:                Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola, President of the
M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, P. Jann (Rapporteur)                 Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and S. von Bahr (Rapporteur),
and L. Sevón, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass,              Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 March 2001, in which it:               given a judgment on 8 March 2001, in which it:


title: Case C-490/07: Action brought on 7 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Cyprus

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/30

         Action brought on 7 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Cyprus
   (Case C-490/07)
   (2007/C 315/50)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Patakia, A. Alcover San Pedro)

      Defendant: Republic of Cyprus
   Form of order sought
   The Court is asked to:

               —

               declare, that,

                           —

                           by failing to set in place a system to promote the recovery, recycling, reclamation and destruction of controlled substances,

                           —

                           by applying a system for managing controlled substances based on the storing of old equipment containing used controlled substances until appropriate installations have been constructed or until they are sent abroad for disposal,

                           —

                           by failing to report the quantities of used controlled substances recovered, recycled, reclaimed or destroyed,

                           —

                           by having training programmes which are voluntary, without having put in place a legal framework to define the minimum qualification requirements for the personnel involved with the recycling of controlled substances contained in refrigeration, air conditioning and heat pump equipment, equipment containing solvents and fire protection systems and extinguishers,

                           —

                           by failing to take every possible precautionary measure to ensure that fixed equipment with a refrigerating fluid charge of more than 3 kg is checked for leakages annually and by failing to lay down minimum qualification requirements for the personnel involved,

                     the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16(1) and (5), first and second indents, and Article 17(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer;

               —

               order the Republic of Cyprus to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               The authorities of the Republic of Cyprus submitted a report, on 6 April 2005, to the Commission concerning the application of Articles 16 and 17 of Regulation No 2037/2000/EC on substances that deplete the ozone layer.

               2.

               Having studied that report, the Commission found that the Republic of Cyprus had not put in place a system of measures to promote the recovery, recycling, reclamation and destruction of controlled substances, including the relevant installations, nor had it enacted legislation designating those responsible for collecting and dismantling or disposal in of controlled substances.

               3.

               The Commission also found that the necessary full legal framework laying down the minimum qualification requirements for personnel involved in the recycling of controlled substances did not exist and that the existing training programmes were voluntary.

               4.

               Lastly, the Commission found that, as regards the requirements that equipment with a refrigerating fluid charge of more than 3 kg be checked for leakages annually and that minimum qualification requirements for the personnel involved be defined, the adoption of the relevant national legislation is still pending.

               5.

               The Commission consequently considers that the Republic of Cyprus has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16(1) and (5), first and second indents, and Article 17(1) of Regulation No 2037/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer.


title: Case T-227/12 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 24 October 2012 — Saobraćajni institut CIP v Commission (Application for interim measures — Public service contracts — Call for tenders concerning the preparation of technical documentation for a rail modernisation project — Exclusion of the applicant from participation in the tender procedure — Annulment of the tender procedure after the action had been brought — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               22.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/23

         Order of the President of the General Court of 24 October 2012 — Saobraćajni institut CIP v Commission
   (Case T-227/12 R)
   (Application for interim measures - Public service contracts - Call for tenders concerning the preparation of technical documentation for a rail modernisation project - Exclusion of the applicant from participation in the tender procedure - Annulment of the tender procedure after the action had been brought - No need to adjudicate)
   2012/C 399/45
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Saobraćajni institut CIP d.o.o. (Belgrade, Serbia) (represented by: A. Lojpur, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher and E. Georgieva, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for, essentially, interim measures ordering the suspension of the tender procedure in the context of the contract notice published on 3 April 2012 concerning the preparation of technical documentation for a rail modernisation project and excluding the applicant from participating in the tender procedure.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no further need to adjudicate on the application for interim measures.

               2.

               The European Commission shall pay the costs.


title: Case C-38/07 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 November 2008 — Heuschen & Schrouff Oriëntal Foods Trading BV v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Remission of import duties — Commission decision — Article 239 of the Customs Code — Existence of a special situation — Absence of deception — Obvious negligence on the part of the importer)

text:
               10.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/3

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 November 2008 — Heuschen & Schrouff Oriëntal Foods Trading BV v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-38/07 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Remission of import duties - Commission decision - Article 239 of the Customs Code - Existence of a special situation - Absence of deception - Obvious negligence on the part of the importer)
   (2009/C 6/04)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Appellant: Heuschen & Schrouff Oriëntal Foods Trading BV (represented by: H. de Bie, advocaat)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: X. Lewis, acting as Agent, assisted by F. Tuytschaever, advocaat)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 30 November 2006 in Case T-382/04 Heuschen & Schrouff Oriëntal Foods v Commission, by which the Court of First Instance dismissed an application for annulment of Commission Decision REM 19/2002 of 17 June 2004 finding that remission of import duties was not justified in a particular case
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Heuschen & Schrouff Oriëntal Foods Trading BV to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.


title: Case T-120/12: Order of the General Court of 20 November 2012 — Shahid Beheshti University v Council (Annulment action — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran to prevent nuclear proliferation — Freezing funds — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Lateness — Inadmissible)

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/48

         Order of the General Court of 20 November 2012 — Shahid Beheshti University v Council
   (Case T-120/12) (1)

   (Annulment action - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran to prevent nuclear proliferation - Freezing funds - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Lateness - Inadmissible)
   2013/C 26/97
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Shahid Beheshti University (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: J.-M Thouvenin, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: R. Liudvinaviciute Cordeiro and A. Varnav, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Council Decision 2011/299/CFSP of 23 May 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 136, p. 65), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2011 of 23 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 136, p. 26), Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, 71), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11), as far as those acts concern the applicant, and the decision contained in the Council’s letter sent to the applicant on 5 December 2011.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Shahid Behesti University is to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

      (1)  OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.


title: Joined Cases T-457/04 and T-223/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 October 2008 — Camar v Commission (Common organisation of the markets — Bananas — Transitional measures — Article 30 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 — Judgment finding that the Commission had failed to act — Failure to give effect to a judgment of the Court — Action for annulment — Application for an order that effect be given to the judgment by way of financial equivalent — Compensation for non-material damage — Unlawful failure to act on the part of the Commission — Action for damages — Suspension of the limitation period — Article 46 of the Statute of the Court of Justice — Inadmissibility)

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/27

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 October 2008 — Camar v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-457/04 and T-223/05) (1)

   (Common organisation of the markets - Bananas - Transitional measures - Article 30 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 - Judgment finding that the Commission had failed to act - Failure to give effect to a judgment of the Court - Action for annulment - Application for an order that effect be given to the judgment by way of financial equivalent - Compensation for non-material damage - Unlawful failure to act on the part of the Commission - Action for damages - Suspension of the limitation period - Article 46 of the Statute of the Court of Justice - Inadmissibility)
   (2008/C 313/46)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Camar Srl (Florence, Italy) (represented by: W. Viscardini, S. Donà and M. Paolin, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented initially by: L. Visaggio, later by F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, agents, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)
   Re:
   In Case T-457/04, application, first, for annulment of the Commission's decision not to give effect to paragraph 1 of the operative part of the judgment of the Court of 8 June 2000, Camar and Tico v Commission and Council (Joined Cases T-79/96, T-260/97 and T-117/98 [2000] ECR II-2193), contained in the letter of 10 September 2004, secondly, for an order that the Commission give effect to paragraph 1 of the operative part of the abovementioned judgment in Camar and Tico v Commission and Council by the financial equivalent of the value of the certificates that it has not issued and, thirdly, for an order that the Commission pay compensation for non-material loss, and in Case T-223/05, application for an order that the Commission pay compensation, on the basis of the non-contractual liability of the European Community, for the loss which the applicant has suffered.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               annuls the decision of the Commission contained in the letter of 10 September 2004 from the Director General of the Directorate General ‘Agriculture’ refusing to give effect to paragraph 1 of the operative part of the judgment of the Court of 8 June 2000, Camar and Tico v Commission and Council (Joined Cases T-79/96, T-260/97 and T-117/98 [2000] ECR II-2193);

               2.

               for the rest, dismisses the action in Case T-457/04 as unfounded;

               3.

               dismisses the action in T-223/05 as inadmissible;

               4.

               in Case T-457/04, orders Camar Srl and the Commission each to bear half of their own costs and to pay half of the costs of the other party;

               5.

               in Case T-223/05, orders Camar Srl to bear its own costs and to pay the Commission's costs.

      (1)  OJ C 31, 5.2.2005.


title: Case C-437/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 26 August 2011 — Ekkerhard Schauß v Transportes Aéreos Portugueses SA

text:
               12.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 26 August 2011 — Ekkerhard Schauß v Transportes Aéreos Portugueses SA
   (Case C-437/11)
   2011/C 331/16
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ekkerhard Schauß

      Defendant: Transportes Aéreos Portugueses SA

      Question referred

   Does a passenger have a right to compensation under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) in the case where departure was delayed for a period of time less than the limits specified in Article 6(1) of that regulation, but arrival at the final destination was at least three hours later than the scheduled arrival time?

      (1)  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).


title: Case T-379/05: Action brought on  14 October 2005  — Zuffa/OHIM

text:
               14.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 10/23

         Action brought on 14 October 2005 — Zuffa/OHIM
   (Case T-379/05)
   (2006/C 10/46)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Zuffa, LLC (Las Vegas, USA) [represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, M. Blair, Solicitor]

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               The decision of the First Board of Appeal dated 8 August 2005 in Case R 24/2005-1 shall be annulled;

               —

               the Office shall bear its own costs and pay those of the applicant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ULTIMATE FIGHTING’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 25, 28 and 41 — application No 2 766 590

      Decision of the examiner: Refusal of the application in respect of all goods and services applied for

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: The term ULTIMATE FIGHTING, taken as a whole, is not a generic or usual name in relation to all the claimed goods and services. The Board of Appeal failed to adequately analyse the whole mark in relation to all the goods and services applied for.