title: Case F-24/10: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 March 2011 — Kaskarelis v Commission

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/39

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 March 2011 — Kaskarelis v Commission
   (Case F-24/10) (1)

   2012/C 138/95
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010, p. 58.


title: Case T-191/06: Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2011 — FMC Foret v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Duration of the infringement — Presumption of innocence — Rights of the defence — Fines — Attenuating circumstances)

text:
               30.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2011 — FMC Foret v Commission
   (Case T-191/06) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Duration of the infringement - Presumption of innocence - Rights of the defence - Fines - Attenuating circumstances)
   2011/C 226/39
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: FMC Foret, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: M. Seimetz, lawyer, and C. Stanbrook QC)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by F. Arbault, and subsequently by V. Di Bucci and V. Bottka, Agents, and by M. Gray, Barrister)

      Re:

   Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 1766 final of 3 May 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen peroxide and perborate) and, in the alternative, a reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders FMC Foret SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.


title: Case T-429/14: Action brought on 12 June 2014  — Uriinmuebles v Commission

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/57

         Action brought on 12 June 2014 — Uriinmuebles v Commission
   (Case T-429/14)
   2014/C 253/77
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Uriinmuebles, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. García Muñoz, J. Jiménez-Blanco Carrillo de Albornoz and J. Corral García, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay all the costs incurred in the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-392/14 Gutser v Commission.


title: Case C-212/04: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 July 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles Protodikio Thessalonikis — Greece) — Konstantinos Adeneler, Pandora Kosa-Valdirka, Nikolaos Markou, Agapi Pantelidou, Christina Topalidou, Apostolos Alexopoulos, Konstantinos Vasiniotis, Vasiliki Karagianni, Apostolos Tsitsionis, Aristidis Andreou, Evangelia Vasila, Kalliopi Peristeri, Spiridon Sklivanitis, Dimosthenis Tselefis, Theopisti Patsidou, Dimitrios Vogiatzis, Rousas Voskakis, Vasilios Giatakis v Ellinikos Organismos Galaktos (ELOG) (Directive 1999/70/EC — Clauses 1(b) and 5 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work — Successive fixed-term employment contracts in the public sector — Concepts of successive contracts and objective reasons justifying the renewal of such contracts — Measures intended to prevent abuse — Sanctions — Scope of the obligation to interpret national law in conformity with Community law)

text:
               2.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 July 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles Protodikio Thessalonikis — Greece) — Konstantinos Adeneler, Pandora Kosa-Valdirka, Nikolaos Markou, Agapi Pantelidou, Christina Topalidou, Apostolos Alexopoulos, Konstantinos Vasiniotis, Vasiliki Karagianni, Apostolos Tsitsionis, Aristidis Andreou, Evangelia Vasila, Kalliopi Peristeri, Spiridon Sklivanitis, Dimosthenis Tselefis, Theopisti Patsidou, Dimitrios Vogiatzis, Rousas Voskakis, Vasilios Giatakis v Ellinikos Organismos Galaktos (ELOG)
   (Case C-212/04) (1)

   (Directive 1999/70/EC - Clauses 1(b) and 5 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work - Successive fixed-term employment contracts in the public sector - Concepts of ‘successive contracts’ and ‘objective reasons’ justifying the renewal of such contracts - Measures intended to prevent abuse - Sanctions - Scope of the obligation to interpret national law in conformity with Community law)
   (2006/C 212/04)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Referring court
   Monomeles Protodikio Thessalonikis
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Claimants: Konstantinos Adeneler, Pandora Kosa-Valdirka, Nikolaos Markou, Agapi Pantelidou, Christina Topalidou, Apostolos Alexopoulos, Konstantinos Vasiniotis, Vasiliki Karagianni, Apostolos Tsitsionis, Aristidis Andreou, Evangelia Vasila, Kalliopi Peristeri, Spiridon Sklivanitis, Dimosthenis Tselefis, Theopisti Patsidou, Dimitrios Vogiatzis, Rousas Voskakis, Vasilios Giatakis

      Defendant: Ellinikos Organismos Galaktos (ELOG)
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Monomeles Protodikio Thessalonikis — Interpretation of clause 5(1) and (2) of the annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43) — Employment contracts concluded with the public authorities — ‘Objective reasons’ justifying unlimited renewal of successive fixed-term contracts — ‘Successive contracts’
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Clause 5(1)(a) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, is to be interpreted as precluding the use of successive fixed-term employment contracts where the justification advanced for their use is solely that it is provided for by a general provision of statute or secondary legislation of a Member State. On the contrary, the concept of ‘objective reasons’ within the meaning of that clause requires recourse to this particular type of employment relationship, as provided for by national legislation, to be justified by the presence of specific factors relating in particular to the activity in question and the conditions under which it is carried out.

               2.

               Clause 5 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work is to be interpreted as precluding a national rule, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which only fixed-term employment contracts or relationships that are not separated from one another by a period of time longer than 20 working days are to be regarded as ‘successive’ within the meaning of that clause.

               3.

               In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, the framework agreement on fixed-term work is to be interpreted as meaning that, in so far as domestic law of the Member State concerned does not include, in the sector under consideration, any other effective measure to prevent and, where relevant, punish the misuse of successive fixed-term contracts, that framework agreement precludes the application of national legislation which, in the public sector alone, prohibits absolutely the conversion into an employment contract of indefinite duration of a succession of fixed-term contracts that, in fact, have been intended to cover ‘fixed and permanent needs’ of the employer and must therefore be regarded as constituting an abuse.

               4.

               Where a directive is transposed belatedly into a Member State's domestic law and the relevant provisions of the directive do not have direct effect, the national courts are bound to interpret domestic law so far as possible, once the period for transposition has expired, in the light of the wording and the purpose of the directive concerned with a view to achieving the results sought by the directive, favouring the interpretation of the national rules which is the most consistent with that purpose in order thereby to achieve an outcome compatible with the provisions of the directive.

      (1)  OJ C 179, 10.07.2004.


title: Case C-477/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation (France) lodged on 25 November 2009 — Charles Defossez v Christian Wiart, liquidator of Sotimon SARL, Office national de l’emploi, CGEA de Lille

text:
               13.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation (France) lodged on 25 November 2009 — Charles Defossez v Christian Wiart, liquidator of Sotimon SARL, Office national de l’emploi, CGEA de Lille
   (Case C-477/09)
   2010/C 37/19
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de Cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Charles Defossez

      Defendant: Christian Wiart, liquidator of Sotimon SARL; Office national de l’emploi (fonds de fermeture d’entreprises); CGEA de Lille

      Question referred

   Is the reference to the Court of Justice of the European Communities for a ruling on whether Article 8a of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, (1) as amended by Directive 2002/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002, (2) which provides, in paragraph 1 thereof, that when an undertaking with activities in the territories of at least two Member States is in a state of insolvency, the institution responsible for meeting employees’ outstanding claims is to be that in the Member State in whose territory they work or habitually work and, in paragraph 2 thereof, that the extent of employees’ rights is to be determined by the law governing the competent guarantee institution, is to be interpreted as designating the competent institution to the exclusion of any other, or whether, having regard to the purpose of the Directive, which is to strengthen the rights of workers exercising their right to freedom of movement, and to the first paragraph of Article 9 of the Directive, under which the Directive is not to affect the option of Member States to apply or introduce laws, regulations or administrative provisions which are more favourable to employees, it is to be interpreted as not depriving the employee of the right to take advantage, in the place of that institution’s guarantee, of a more favourable guarantee from the institution with which his employer is insured and to which it makes contributions under national law?

      (1)  OJ L 283, p. 23.

      (2)  OJ L 270, p. 10.


title: Case T-351/04: Action brought on 24 August 2004 by Bitburger Brauerei Th. Simon GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
               22.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/25

         Action brought on 24 August 2004 by Bitburger Brauerei Th. Simon GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case T-351/04)
   (2005/C 19/55)
   Language in which the application was submitted: German
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 24 August 2004 by Bitburger Brauerei Th. Simon GmbH, of Bitburg (Germany), represented by Michaela Huth-Dierig, lawyer. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., of St Louis (United States of America), was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 June 2004 in appeal R 447/2002-2;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               Anheuser-Busch, Inc.

               Community trade mark sought:

               Figurative mark American Bud for goods in Classes 16, 25 and 32 (inter alia paper, clothing, beer, ale, porter, malted alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages) – Application No 398 966

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               The applicant

               Mark or sign cited in opposition:

               German word and figurative marks Bit, BIT and Bitte ein Bit for goods and services in Classes 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 28, 32, 34 and 42 (inter alia beer and non-alcoholic drinks)

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Opposition rejected

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Applicant's appeal dismissed

               Pleas in law:

                           —

                           There is considerable aural similarity between the marks

                           —

                           Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 was applied incorrectly

                           —

                           The BIT marks with earlier priority enjoy extended protection under Article 8(5) of the regulation


title: Case T-752/16: Action brought on 28 October 2016 — Novolipetsk Steel v Commission

text:
               16.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 14/38

         Action brought on 28 October 2016 — Novolipetsk Steel v Commission
   (Case T-752/16)
   (2017/C 014/47)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: PAO Novolipetsk Steel (Lipetsk, Russia) (represented by: B. Evtimov, lawyer and D. O’Keeffe, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1328 of 29 July 2016 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain cold rolled flat steel products originating, inter alia, in the Russian Federation, published in the OJ L 210 of 04/08/2016 in its entirety insofar as it affects the Applicant;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of and occasioned by these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a breach of the right to a fair hearing, including the rights of defence, the principle of equality of arms, and the principle of good administration.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached Article 18 of the Basic Regulation (1), Article 6.8 and Annex II of the ADA (2), the principle of proportionality and made an error in law and a manifest error of assessment by considering the Applicant a non-cooperating producer and applying facts available to it.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached Article 3(2) and 3(5) of the Basic Regulation and Article 3.1 of the ADA, distorted the evidence before it and made manifest errors of assessment, by wrongly assessing the injury indicators and not carrying out an objective examination of the state of the Union industry.

                           —

                           The Applicant puts forward that the Commission relied only on selected economic indicators of the state of the Union industry and neglected key indicators which would have revealed a different, more positive state of the Union industry.

                           —

                           The Applicant further puts forward that the Commission took a biased approach favoring its injury findings and distorting evidence before it by failing to examine the ‘free’ and ‘captive’ markets of the product concerned as a whole in violation of its duty to conduct an objective evaluation under Article 3(2) of the Basic Regulation.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached Article 3(7) of the Basic Regulation, as it wrongly assessed the causal link between allegedly dumped imports and the situation of the Union industry. The Applicant further puts forward that the Commission failed in its duty not to attribute other factors causing injury to the allegedly dumped imports and overlooked other factors which jointly and severally were capable of breaking the causal link.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission wrongly determined the injury elimination level, breaching Articles 2(9), 9(4) of the Basic Regulation and making a manifest error of assessment. In particular, according to the Applicant, the Commission determined an unreasonable and excessive profit margin for the Union industry and committed a manifest error of assessment in applying, for injury margin purposes, and by analogy, the adjustment for reasonable selling, general and administrative costs and a profit of an unrelated importer, foreseen in Article 2(9) of the Basic Regulation.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ L 343, p. 51).

      (2)  WTO Anti-dumping Agreement.


title: Case C-343/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal do Trabalho de Leiria (Portugal) lodged on 24 June 2013 — Modelo Continente Hipermercados SA v Autoridade para as Condições do Trabalho — Centro Local do Lis (ACT)

text:
               7.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/26

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal do Trabalho de Leiria (Portugal) lodged on 24 June 2013 — Modelo Continente Hipermercados SA v Autoridade para as Condições do Trabalho — Centro Local do Lis (ACT)
   (Case C-343/13)
   2013/C 260/45
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal do Trabalho de Leiria

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Modelo Continente Hipermercados SA

      Defendant: Autoridade para as Condições do Trabalho — Centro Local do Lis (ACT)

      Questions referred

               1.

               In the light of Community law and, in particular, Directive 2011/35/EU (1) and Article 19 thereof, does the merger of companies entail a system of transfer of liability for administrative offences to the acquiring company for acts committed by the company being acquired before registration of the merger?

               2.

               Can a penalty for administrative offences be considered a debt owed to third parties (in the present case the State, for infringement of rules concerning administrative offences) for the purposes of the application of the Directive, with the consequence that the corresponding debt (fine) for an administrative offence, in respect of which the State is the creditor, is transferred to the acquiring company?

               3.

               Does an interpretation of Article 112 of the Commercial Companies Code according to which it does not imply termination of proceedings for an administrative offence committed before the merger, or of the corresponding fine to be imposed, conflict with the abovementioned Community Directive, which sets out the consequences of a company merger, thereby constituting a broad interpretation of the provision contrary to the principles of Community law and, in particular, Article 19 of the Directive?

               4.

               Does that interpretation constitute a breach of the principle that there can be no administrative offence without strict (mitigated) liability or liability for fault on the part of the acquiring entity?

      (1)  Directive 2011/35/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 concerning mergers of public limited liability companies (OJ L 110, 29.4.2011, p. 1)


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 December 2001 in Case C-166/00: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to transpose Directives 97/41/EC, 98/51/EC and 98/67/EC)

text:
C 84/24                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           6.4.2002
—     Council Directive 97/76/EC of 16 December 1997                       G. Kanellopoulos, C. Tsiavou and D. Tsagkaraki) — application
      amending Directive 77/99/EEC and Directive 72/462/EEC                for a declaration that, by not bringing into force the laws,
      with regard to the rules applicable to minced meat, meat             regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply
      preparations and certain other products of animal origin             with:
      (OJ 1998 L 10, p. 25), and
—     Commission Directive 98/51/EC of 9 July 1998 laying
      down certain measures for implementing Council Direc-                —     Council Directive 97/41/EC of 25 June 1997 amending
      tive 95/69/EC laying down the conditions and arrange-                      Directives 76/895/EEC, 86/362/EEC, 86/363/EEC and
      ments for approving and registering certain establish-                     90/642/EEC relating to the fixing of maximum levels for
      ments and intermediaries operating in the animal feed                      pesticide residues in and on, respectively, fruit and
      sector (OJ 1998 L 208, p. 43),                                             vegetables, cereals, foodstuffs of animal origin, and certain
                                                                                products of plant origin, including fruit and vegetables
the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the              (OJ 1997 L 184, p. 33),
Treaty and those directives — the Court (Fourth Chamber),
composed of: S. von Bahr, President of the Chamber, A. La
Pergola and C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Lé-
ger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a                    —     Council Directive 97/76/EC of 16 December 1997
judgment on 6 December 2001, in which it:                                        amending Directive 77/99/EEC and Directive 72/462/EEC
                                                                                with regard to the rules applicable to minced meat, meat
1.    Declares that, by not bringing into force, within the prescribed           preparations and certain other products of animal origin
      period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions                (OJ 1998 L 10, p. 25),
      necessary to comply with Commission Directive 98/51/EC of
      9 July 1998 laying down certain measures for implementing
      Council Directive 95/69/EC laying down the conditions and
      arrangements for approving and registering certain establish-        —     Commission Directive 98/51/EC of 9 July 1998 laying
      ments and intermediaries operating in the animal feed sector,              down certain measures for implementing Council Direc-
      the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under            tive 95/69/EC laying down the conditions and arrange-
      that directive.                                                            ments for approving and registering certain establish-
                                                                                ments and intermediaries operating in the animal feed
2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                              sector (OJ 1998 L 208, p. 43), and
(1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
                                                                           —     Commission Directive 98/67/EC of 7 September 1998
                                                                                amending         Directives      80/511/EEC,      82/475/EEC,
                                                                                91/357/EEC and Council Directive 96/25/EC and
                                                                                repealing Directive 92/87/EEC (OJ 1998 L 261, p. 10),
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                           within the periods laid down by those directives, the Hellenic
                         (Fourth Chamber)                                  Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the said
                                                                           directives — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of:
                                                                           S. von Bahr, President of the Chamber, A. La Pergola and
                        of 6 December 2001                                 C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate
                                                                           General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 Decem-
in Case C-166/00: Commission of the European Communi-                      ber 2001, in which it:
                    ties v Hellenic Republic (1)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
to transpose Directives 97/41/EC, 98/51/EC and 98/67/EC)
                                                                           1.    Declares that, by not bringing into force, within the prescribed
                                                                                period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
                           (2002/C 84/38)                                        necessary to comply with:
                      (Language of the case: Greek)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published           —     Council Directive 97/41/EC of 25 June 1997 amending
                    in the European Court Reports)                                     Directives 76/895/EEC, 86/362/EEC, 86/363/EEC
                                                                                and 90/642/EEC relating to the fixing of maximum
                                                                                levels for pesticide residues in and on, respectively, fruit
                                                                                and vegetables, cereals, foodstuffs of animal origin, and
In Case C-166/00: Commission of the European Communities                               certain products of plant origin, including fruit and
(Agent: M. Condou-Durande) v Hellenic Republic (Agents:                                vegetables,
 ---pagebreak--- 6.4.2002                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 84/25
      —     Commission Directive 98/51/EC of 9 July 1998 laying            D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola and M. Wathelet, Judges,
            down certain measures for implementing Council Directive       Advocate General: L.A. Geelhoed, Registrar: H.A. Rühl, Princi-
            95/69/EC laying down the conditions and arrangements           pal Administrator, has given a judgment on 24 January 2002,
            for approving and registering certain establishments and       in which it:
            intermediaries operating in the animal feed sector, and
                                                                           1.    Dismisses the action;
      —     Commission Directive 98/67/EC of 7 September 1998
            amending Directives 80/511/EEC, 82/475/EEC,                    2.    Orders the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.
            91/357/EEC and Council Directive 96/25/EC and
            repealing Directive 92/87/EEC,
                                                                           (1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.
      the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      those Directives.
2.    Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(1) OJ C 192 of 8.7.2000.
                                                                                (First Chamber)
                                                                                15 January 2002
                                                                           in Case C-179/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                           from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Gerald Weidacher (as
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    administrator of the insolvent company Thakis Vertriebs-
                                                                           und Handels GmbH) v Bundesminister für Land- und
                                                                                Forstwirtschaft (1)
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                           (Article 149 of the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and
                          24 January 2002                                  Sweden — Transitional measures — Surplus stocks —
                                                                           Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 3108/94 —
                                                                           Competence — Holder of the goods — Import charge
in Case C-170/00: Republic of Finland v Commission of                      applicable — Legitimate expectations — Proportionality —
                  the European Communities (1)                                                      Equal treatment)
(EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Expenditure for                                                      (2002/C 84/40)
1996 and 1997 — Special premiums for bulls — Procedure
                to be followed by the Commission)                                             (Language of the case: German)
                            (2002/C 84/39)                                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                    (Language of the case: Finnish)
                                                                           In Case C-179/00: reference to the Court under Article 234
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     EC by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary
                    in the European Court Reports)                         ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
                                                                           Gerald Weidacher (as administrator of the insolvent company
                                                                           Thakis Vertriebs- und Handels GmbH) and Bundesminister für
                                                                           Land- und Forstwirtschaft on the interpretation of
In Case C-170/00, Republic of Finland (Agents: T. Pynnä and                Article 149(1) of the Act of Accession of the Republic of
E. Bygglin) v Commission of the European Communities                       Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden
(Agents: M. Niejahr and I. Koskinen): Application for partial              and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European
annulment of Commission Decision 2000/216/EC of 1 March                    Union is founded (OJ 1994 C 241, p. 21, and OJ 1995 L 1,
2000 excluding from Community financing certain expendi-                   p. 1) and on the validity and interpretation of Commission
ture incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee                     Regulation (EC) No 3108/94 of 19 December 1994 on
Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee                transitional measures to be adopted on account of the
Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2000 L 67, p. 37), in so far as it excludes               accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden in respect of trade in
from Community financing the sum of FIM 7 270 885,76                       agricultural products (OJ 1994 L 328, p. 42),the Court (First
incurred in the applicant Member State on advance payment                  Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber,
of special premiums for bulls, for the 1996 and 1997                       L. Sevón and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), Judges, Advocate
marketing years, the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:                   General: J. Mischo, Registrar: R. Grass, has given a judgment
P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr,               on 15 January 2002, in which it has ruled:


title: Case T-155/06: Action brought on 14 June 2006 — Tomra Systems and Others v Commission

text:
               12.8.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/24

         Action brought on 14 June 2006 — Tomra Systems and Others v Commission
   (Case T-155/06)
   (2006/C 190/43)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: Tomra Systems ASA (Asker, Norway), Tomra Europe AS (Asker, Norway), Tomra Systems BV (Apeldoorn, Netherlands), Tomra Systems GmbH (Hilden, Germany), Tomra Butikksystemer AS (Asker, Norway), Tomra Systems AB (Sollentuna, Sweden), Tomra Leergutsysteme GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: A. Ryan, Solicitor, J. Midthjell, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision COMP/E-1/38.113 — Prokent/Tomra of 29 March 2006 in its entirety; and

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred by the applicants to post a bank guarantee for its obligation to pay the fine.

               —

               In the alternative, annul or reduce substantially the amount of the fine imposed by Article 2 of the abovementioned decision; and

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred by the applicants to post a bank guarantee for its obligation to pay the fine.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants are part of the Tomra group, which is active in the area of collecting used beverage containers mainly through the supply of reverse vending machines (RVMs) and related products and services.
   In 2001 the Commission received a complaint denouncing an abuse of a dominant position on the part of the applicants preventing the complainant's access to the market.
   By the contested decision, the Commission concluded that the applicants infringed Article 82 EC and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement in the period 1998-2002 by implementing an exclusionary strategy in the national reverse vending machines markets in Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden, involving exclusivity agreements, individualised quantity commitments and individualised retroactive rebate schemes. The Commission imposed on the applicants a fine of 24 million EUR.
   In support of their application, the applicants submit that the Commission:

               —

               used manifestly incorrect and unreliable evidence to prove that the group designed a strategy to foreclose competition and implemented that strategy by 49 agreements with its customers between 1998 and 2002;

               —

               committed manifest errors on its assessment on whether the agreements were capable of foreclosing competition and failure to state reasons, and on whether these agreement actually foreclosed competition;

               —

               committed a manifest error in law by holding exclusivity agreements, individualised quantity commitments and individualised retroactive rebates unlawful per se under Article 82 EC;

               —

               committed a manifest error in concluding that non-binding quantity commitments can infringe Article 82 EC; and

               —

               breached the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination when it imposed the EUR 24 million fine on the applicants.


               27.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/1

         Taking of the oath by a new Member of the Court of Justice
   2010/C 80/02
   Following his appointment as Advocate General at the Court of Justice of the European Communities for the period from 30 November 2009 to 6 October 2015 by decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of 30 November 2009, (1) Mr Cruz Villalón took the oath before the Court on 14 December 2009.

      (1)  OJ L 14 of 20.1.2010, p.12.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal, London, by order of that court of 26 October 1995, in the case of Upjohn Ltd against 1. The Licensing Authority established by the Medicines Act 1968; 2. Secretary of State for Health; 3. Secretary of State for Wales; 4. Secretary of State for Scotland; 5. Minister for Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland (Case C-120/97)

text:
10 . 5 . 97           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 142/ 15
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  — errors of law in the application of the concept of
                                                                          misuse of powers.
— Misrepresentation of the contested decision: the Court             (') OJ No C 54 , 22 . 2 . 1997, p. 20.
     of First Instance misrepresented the contested decision         ( ) Case T-24/90 Automec Sri v. Commission [ 1992 ] ECR II
      by referring exclusively to the Community interest as              2223 .
     the sole independent ground of the contested decision,
     even though that term is not used anywhere in the
     contested decision and, moreover, nothing in the
     contested decision supports the conclusion that the
     Commission took into account the criteria laid down
     for determination of any such Community interest
                                                                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal,
     in the judgment of the Court of First Instance                  London, by order of that court of 26 October 1995 , in the
     in the second Automec (2 ) case. Furthermore, the
                                                                     case of Upjohn Ltd against 1 . The Licensing Authority
     Commission makes no reference to that judgment,                 established by the Medicines Act 1968; 2. Secretary of
     notwithstanding its usual practice of doing so when it          State for Health; 3 . Secretary of State for Wales; 4.
     wishes to rely on it,                                           Secretary of State for Scotland; 5 . Minister for Health and
                                                                                Social Services for Northern Ireland
— error of law in that the judgment states the                                                 ( Case C-120/97 )
     Commission may base the contested decision on a                                             ( 97/C 142/31 )
     reference to another decision,
                                                                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
— infringement of Article 190 of the EC Treaty,                      European Communities by an order of the Court of
                                                                     Appeal, London, of 26 October 1995, which was received
                                                                     at the Court Registry on 24 March 1997, for a
— lack of legal basis : the Court of First Instance did not          preliminary ruling in the case of Upjohn Ltd against 1 .
     undertake the essential investigations that would have          The Licensing Authority established by the Medicines Act
     enabled it to establish the correctness of its conclusion       1968 ; 2 . Secretary of State for Health; 3 . Secretary of
     that the applicant was wrong to state that La Poste             State for Wales; 4 . Secretary of State for Scotland; 5 .
     could continue to grant cross-subsidies in the absence          Minister for Health and Social Services for Northern
     of requests by third parties to join its network and            Ireland, on the following questions:
     that accordingly it could or could not lawfully apply
     Article 86 of the EC Treaty or invoke the Community             1.   On the true construction of Council Directive 65/65/
     interest,                                                            EEC n as amended and in the light of Community
                                                                          law generally, is it the duty of a national court when
                                                                          ruling upon the compatibility with the aforesaid
— error of law in that the Court of First Instance could                  Community law of a decision of a Licensing Authority
     not lawfully infer from the documents before it that                 of a Member State to revoke a licence held by the
     the Commission duly found that the infringements had                 manufacturer of a medicine product to decide whether
     ceased,                                                              or not the said decision was the correct decision as
                                                                          opposed to a decision which the Licensing Authority
                                                                          could reasonably have reached on the material before
— infringement of rules of law concerning appraisal of                    it ? .
     the Community interest: in order to appraise the
     Community interest, the Commission was under an                 2 . If the answer to Question 1 is that the national court
     obligation to take account of the criteria of assessment             has to decide whether the decision of the competent
     laid down in the Community case-law, in particular                   authority was the correct decision does Community
     the judgment in Automec II. By taking the view that                  law require it to answer that question solely on the
     'the Commission is entitled to take other relevant                   basis of the material before the competent authority or
     factors into account in that assessment' and any such                is it obliged to -look at any relevant material coming to
     other elements as it sees fit to consider, the Court of              light after the decision ?
     First   Instance  relieved  the   Commission     of  that
     obligation,                                                     3 . Was it lawful for the Licensing Authority to revoke the
                                                                          licence when the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal
                                                                          Products ( CPMP ) was known to the Licensing
— infringement of Article 86 of the EC Treaty in                          Authority to be soon to produce an opinion as to
     conjunction with Articles 3g, 89 and 155 of the EC                   continuance of the licence ?
     Treaty,
                                                                     (') Council Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on the
                                                                         approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or
— breach of the general principles of Community law                      administrative action relating to proprietary medicinal
     (the principle of sound administration; the principle of            products ( English Special Edition 1965—1966, November
     equal treatment and non-discrimination; and the                     1972, p. 20 ).
     principles of legal certainty and protection of
     legitimate expectations ),


title: Case T-206/08: Action brought on 9 June 2008 — Spain v Commission

text:
               2.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 197/29

         Action brought on 9 June 2008 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-206/08)
   (2008/C 197/51)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: Sr. F. Díez Moreno)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul Commission Decision 2008/321/EC of 8 April 2008 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF), in so far as it includes corrections which affect the Kingdom of Spain, deriving from two investigations concerning potential for vine production (VT/VI/2002/14 and VT/VI/2006/09), totalling EUR 54 949 195,80, as a result of the application of a correction at a flat rate of 10 % of all the expenditure declared earlier by way of related assistance; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The exclusions from Community financing which affect Spain in the present proceedings derive from two investigations concerning potential for vine production (VT/VI/2002/14 and VT/VI/2006/09), taking as a basis for the calculation of the financial correction the expenditure declared by Spain for all the assistance measures for which the products resulting from illegal plots of vineyard plantations in the budgetary years 2003 and 2004 could compete, for a total of EUR 54 949 195,80 (correction at a flat rate of 10 % of all the expenditure declared by way of such assistance, in respect of defects in controls of the prohibition on any plantation of vines).
   The Kingdom of Spain challenges the proposed financial correction, considering it unjustified and disproportionate, on the basis of the following arguments:

               —

               failure to state the reasons on which the proposed correction is based;

               —

               correct implementation by Spanish organisations of controls for the detection of illegal plantations in 2003 and 2004;

               —

               failure by the Commission to carry out the procedures provided for in connection with the clearance of accounts,

               —

               inappropriateness of using the results of the investigation carried out in 2002;

               —

               rejection of the extrapolation of the proposed correction to the Autonomous Regions not visited; and

               —

               absence of technical arguments to support the proposed percentage of charge: discriminatory aspects of the various regulatory measures.


title: Case C-515/14: Action brought on 14 November 2014  — European Commission v Republic of Cyprus

text:
               23.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/19

         Action brought on 14 November 2014 — European Commission v Republic of Cyprus
   (Case C-515/14)
   (2015/C 065/28)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Tserepa-Lacombe and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Cyprus

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that the Republic of Cyprus has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 45 and 48 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union because it has not repealed with retroactive effect, from 1 May 2004, the age criterion which is contained in Article 27 of the Law on Pensions (Law 97(I)97) and which renders that article incompatible with the foregoing provisions, since it deters workers from leaving their State in order to take up work in another Member State, an institution of the European Union or another international body and as it results in unequal treatment between migrant workers, including those who work in the institutions of the European Union or another international body, on the one hand, and State officials who have engaged in activity only in Cyprus, on the other;

               —

               order the Republic of Cyprus to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The European Commission requests the Court to declare that the Republic of Cyprus has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 45 and 48 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union because it has not repealed with retroactive effect, from 1 May 2004, the age criterion which is contained in Article 27 of Law 97(I)97 and which renders that article incompatible with the foregoing provisions, since it deters workers from leaving their State in order to take up work in another Member State, an institution of the European Union or another international body and as it results in unequal treatment between migrant workers, including those who work in the institutions of the European Union, and State officials who have engaged in activity only in Cyprus. The Cypriot legislation, and specifically Article 27 of the Law on Pensions (Law 97(I)97), introduces a difference in treatment between officials of the national administration and officials who work in another Member State in international bodies or in the European Union, since only workers who have engaged in activity exclusively in Cyprus can, in the event of release from the State service, make use of Articles 24 and 25 of the Law on Pensions and retain their pension rights even if they do not fulfil the age criterion of 45 or 48 years. On the other hand, workers who have exercised their right to freedom of movement do not have the possibility of relying on those articles, with the consequence of loss of their pension rights.
   Furthermore, the article of the Law on Pensions that is at issue impedes the free movement of workers because it denies the worker the possibility of relying on aggregation of all insurance periods and does not guarantee the migrant worker a unified career for social security purposes. Application of the Law on Pensions means that an official who resigns voluntarily from the State service of Cyprus in order to work in another Member State in international bodies, and who does not fulfil the age criterion of having reached 45 or 48 years as the case may be, receives only the lump sum and loses the pension rights, pursuant to Article 27(1)(b) of the Law on Pensions, even if he has completed the minimum period of insurance of five years.
   In addition, Law 31(I)/2012 which provides only for the possibility of transfer of pension rights to and from the pension scheme of officials of the European Union does not contain any provision relating to the pension rights of State officials who leave the State service of Cyprus in order to take up duties with the European Union but ultimately choose not to transfer their pension rights pursuant to Article 11 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities. Those officials will lose their pension rights if they have resigned voluntarily from the State service of Cyprus and do not fulfil the age criterion.
   Moreover, the Law on the Pension Benefits of State Officials in the Broader Public Sector including Local Authorities (Provisions of General Application) of 2011 (Law 113(I)/2011) applies only to State officials who are new entrants appointed to a post for the first time on or after 1 October 2011, the date upon which that Law entered into force, with the result that the age discrimination continues to apply in respect of those who are governed by the Law on Pensions (Law 97(I)97).


title: Case T-190/01: Action brought on 5 August 2001 by Vassilios Tsarnavas against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 317/30               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    10.11.2001
Action brought on 8 August 2001 by Nicole Robert                         European Communities on 5 August 2001 by Vassilios
                 against European Parliament                             Tsarnavas, resident in Brussels, represented by Nicolas Lhoëst,
                                                                         lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                         (Case T-186/01)
                         (2001/C 317/58)                                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
                   (Language of the case: French)                        —     annul the decision adopted by the Commission on
                                                                               21 September 2000 in that it decides that the applicant’s
An action against the European Parliament was brought before                   name should not be included on the list of grade A5
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                     officials considered the most deserving of promotion
8 August 2001 by Nicole Robert, of Strassen, Luxembourg,                       under the 1998 promotions procedure and, as a result,
represented by Alain Lorang, lawyer, with an address for                       that the applicant should not be promoted to grade A4
service in Luxembourg.                                                         under the 1998 promotions procedure;
                                                                         —     in so far as necessary, annul the Commission’s implied
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    decision rejecting the complaint submitted by the appli-
—     annul the decisions taken by the Director-General of                     cant on 27 December 2000 under Article 90(2) of the
                                                                               Staff Regulations;
      Personnel on 26 November 1999 promoting certain
      other officials from grade B2 to grade B1, in that they
      were reached without opening or publishing vacant posts            —     consequently annul the 1998 A4 promotions procedure
      for principal assistants and with an incorrect comparison                with regard to the applicant;
      of the merits;
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay all the costs of the action.
—     annul the decision of 23 May 2001 by which the President
      of the European Parliament rejected her complaint of
      29 February 2000;
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                         In support of his action, the applicant alleges a lack of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          reasoning in the contested decision, breach of Articles 26, 43
                                                                         and 45 of the Staff Regulations and of the principles of equal
                                                                         treatment and sound administration and a manifest error of
The applicant, an official in grade B 2 at the Parliament,               assessment.
contests the Parliament’s decision not to include her amongst
the officials actually promoted by decision of the Director-
General of Personnel of 26 November 1999.
She alleges that the promotion system in force at the Parlia-
ment and the method used in order to apply it are unlawful.
She submits that the Parliament adopted a decision contrary
                                                                         Action brought on 5 August 2001 by Vassilios Tsarnavas
to Articles 4, 5, 7, second paragraph, 9 and 45 and Annex 1
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
to the Staff Regulations. Moreover, because of the procedure
adopted by the Parliament, seniority prevails over merit,
contrary to Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, which can lead                                   (Case T-190/01)
to discrimination against officials who have obtained very high
marks in their staff reports in comparison with those who                                        (2001/C 317/60)
have obtained lower marks in their reports.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Action brought on 5 August 2001 by Vassilios Tsarnavas                   European Communities on 5 August 2001 by Vassilios
  against the Commission of the European Communities                     Tsarnavas, resident in Brussels, represented by Nicolas Lhoëst,
                                                                         lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                         (Case T-188/01)
                         (2001/C 317/59)                                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
                   (Language of the case: French)                        —     annul the Commission decision of 29 September 2000
                                                                               not to uphold the appeal lodged by the applicant
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                      contesting the list of names put forward for promotion
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                     to grade A4 under the 2000 promotions procedure in
 ---pagebreak--- 10.11.2001            EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 317/31
      that his name was not on that list and against the                 Pleas in law and main arguments
      Commission’s decision not to promote him to grade A4
      under the 2000 promotions procedure;
                                                                         The applicant disputes two decisions of the office responsible
—     annul any related and/or subsequent decision;                      for settling claims under the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme
                                                                         refusing to reimburse at 100 % of the cost of certain medical
—     annul the Commission’s implied decision rejecting the              services that he submits are linked to the serious illness from
      complaint submitted by the applicant under Article 90(2)           which his wife is suffering. In support of his action he alleges
      of the Staff Regulations on 27 December 2000;                      breach of Article 72(1) of the Staff Regulations and manifest
                                                                         error of assessment.
—     annul the 2000 A4 promotions procedure with regard to
      the applicant;
—     order the defendant to pay all the costs of the action.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Action brought on 28 August 2001 by Pierrette Dessy
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
In support of his action, the applicant puts forward the same
pleas in law as in Case T-188/01.
                                                                                (Case T-199/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 317/62)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Action brought on 10 August 2001 by André Hecq against
       the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                        (Case T-191/01)                                  European Communities on 28 August 2001 by Pierrette Dessy,
                                                                         resident in Ispra (Italy), represented by Olivier Slusny, lawyer,
                        (2001/C 317/61)                                  with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         —     declare unlawful and annul the implied decision to reject
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                               the applicant’s complaint of 30 January 2001;
European Communities on 10 August 2001 by André Hecq,
resident in Mondercange (Luxembourg), represented by Carlos
Mourato, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.              —     rule that the applicant has the right, in accordance with
                                                                               the provisions of Article 72 of the Staff Regulations, to
                                                                               100 % reimbursement for prescribed products;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —     order the Appointing Authority to pay all the costs.
—     annul the decisions of 13 October 2000 and 6 November
      2000 of the Brussels office responsible for settling claims
      as well as the implied decision of 12 May 2001 of the
      Appointing Authority;
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
—     order the defendant to reimburse to the applicant the
      sum of 38,84 Euros plus default interest from 13 October
      2000;                                                              The applicant, a former Community official, presently in
                                                                         retirement, objects to the refusal of the administration to
—     order the defendant to reimburse to the applicant the              classify as reimbursable certain pharmaceutical products that
      sum of 26,51 Euros plus default interest from 6 Novem-             she needs for the treatment of a serious illness, within the
      ber 2000;                                                          meaning of Article 72(1) of the Staff Regulations, considering
                                                                         them to be ‘inefficacious’ as regards the condition from which
—     order the defendant to pay the costs of the case.                  she is suffering.


title: Case C-574/10: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 March 2012 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2004/18/EC — Public service contracts — Architecture and engineering services — Design, planning and supervision of a project to renovate a public building — Implementation of the project in several phases, for budgetary reasons — Market value)

text:
               5.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 133/8

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 March 2012 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-574/10) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2004/18/EC - Public service contracts - Architecture and engineering services - Design, planning and supervision of a project to renovate a public building - Implementation of the project in several phases, for budgetary reasons - Market value)
   2012/C 133/13
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Wilms and C. Zadra, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze, N. Graf Vitzthum and J. Möller, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Articles 2, 9 and 20 in conjunction with Articles 23 to 55 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114) — Award by the municipality of Niedernhausen, without a Europe-wide invitation to tender, of several architecture services relating to the same construction project to an engineering agency — Division of the service awarded — Calculation of the market value

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Finds that, due to the fact that the municipality of Niedernhausen awarded an architecture services contract relating to the renovation of a public building called ‘Autalhall’ located in the territory of that municipality, the value of which exceeded the threshold laid down in Article 7(b) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, without conducting a Europe-wide invitation to tender, the Federal Republic of Germany infringed its obligations under Articles 2, 9 and 20 in conjunction with Articles 23 to 55 of that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 72, 5.3.2011.


title: Case T-253/16: Order of the General Court of 7 March 2017 — Cleversafe v EUIPO (Storage Beyond Scale)

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/62

         Order of the General Court of 7 March 2017 — Cleversafe v EUIPO (Storage Beyond Scale)
   (Case T-253/16) (1)

   (2017/C 144/95)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 287, 8.8.2016.


title: Case C-265/99: Action brought on 16 July 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
2.10.1999               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 281/3
Action brought on 16 July 1999 by the Commission of                        Action brought on 16 July 1999 by the Commission of
  the European Communities against the Italian Republic                     the European Communities against the French Republic
                          (Case C-264/99)                                                          (Case C-265/99)
                          (1999/C 281/04)                                                          (1999/C 281/05)
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the              An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 16 July                    Court of Justice of the European Communities on 16 July
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,                        1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Antonio Aresu and Maria Patakia, both of its                represented by Enrico Traversa, Legal Adviser, and Hélène
Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in            Michard, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner               for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
Centre, Kirchberg.                                                         Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                     The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:                                                          the Court should:
a) Declare that, by maintaining legislation which requires                 — declare that, by maintaining and applying rules providing
     Community nationals who pursue an activity as hauliers                    for the application of an unfavourable formula for calculat-
     in Italy as service providers to register with Chambers                   ing the power rating for administrative purposes of vehicles
     of Commerce, following authorisation by the Ministero                     fitted with six-speed manual gearboxes and automatic
     dell’Interno, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its               five-speed gearboxes, which produces discriminatory or
     obligations under Articles 6, 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty                  protectionist effects vis-à-vis vehicles manufactured in
     (now, after amendment, Articles 12 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC);                  other Member States by comparison with similar or
                                                                               competing national vehicles, and
b) Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                           — by maintaining provisions limiting the K factor for the
                                                                               purposes of calculating the power rating for tax purposes
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                of vehicles for which type-approval was issued on an
                                                                               isolated basis between 1 January 1978 and 12 January
                                                                               1988 and which are regarded as equivalent to type-
                                                                               approved vehicles having an actual power in excess of
a) I n f r i n g e m e n t o f   Article 59 of the EC                          100 kW,
    Treaty           (now,          after          amendment,
    Article 49 EC)                                                         — the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                               Article 95 of the EC Treaty (now Article 90 EC);
The requirement that any natural or legal person pursuing an               — order the French Republic to pay the costs.
activity as haulier should register in the appropriate register
held by the regional chamber of commerce does not appear to
be compatible with the principle of freedom to provide
services. Although such obligation to register is not directly             Pleas in law and main arguments
discriminatory, it does constitute an obstacle for economic
operators established in a Member State other than Italy
seeking to pursue their activities in that State.                          (Vehicles fitted with six-speed manual gearboxes or automatic
                                                                           five-speed gearboxes)
                                                                           — Infringement of Article 90 EC: the use, in relation to the
b) I n f r i n g e m e n t o f A r t i c l e s 6 a n d 5 2 o f t h e           models referred to, of the formula for calculating their
     EC Treaty (now, after amendment,                                          power rating for administrative purposes resulting from
     Articles 12 and 43 EC)                                                    the 1956 circular, produces discriminatory or protectionist
                                                                               effects by comparison with similar national vehicles to
                                                                               which the generally more favourable 1977 circular applies.
Article 6 of Law No 1442 lays down rules governing regis-
                                                                               The models in question which are produced in other
tration and provides in particular that, so far as concerns
                                                                               Member States seek to achieve the best performance in
foreign firms and companies and firms in general represented
                                                                               terms of fuel consumption and pollution emission levels.
by foreign nationals, the applicant must produce the authoris-
                                                                               These are parameters which the French legislature expressly
ation issued by the Ministero dell’Interno. That provision
                                                                               sought to take into account in 1977, and which prompted
appears to be incompatible with the fundamental principles
                                                                               it to adopt a more complex new formula for calculating
laid down in Articles 12 EC and 43 EC.
                                                                               vehicle power ratings for administrative purposes. Accord-
                                                                               ing to the information in the Commission’s possession,
                                                                               national production of such vehicles is limited to a single
                                                                               vehicle having an automatic five-speed gearbox.
 ---pagebreak--- C 281/4                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                     2.10.1999
     The new legislation enacted in 1998 will produce effects              — Infringement of Article 4(2) of Directive 75/440/EEC: the
     only in relation to the future, and does not put an end to                Commission states that there has been a considerable delay
     the discriminatory taxation suffered by the vehicles the                  (from 1977 to 1993, namely 17 years) on the part of the
     subject-matter of the proceedings which had already been                  French authorities in adopting measures pursuant to their
     placed in circulation in France prior to 1 July 1998.                     obligations under Directive 75/440/EEC, despite the fact
                                                                               that, on the French authorities’ own admission, the prob-
(Vehicles given type-approval on an isolated basis between                     lems concerning pollution of surface water have been
1 January 1978 and 12 January 1988)                                            apparent since the 1980s. The continuing degradation of
                                                                               the quality of surface water by pollution caused by nitrates
— Infringement of Article 90 EC: the Commission considers                      proves the ineffectiveness of the measures constituting
     that the fact that the French authorities limited changes to              the systematic plan of action submitted by the French
     the power rating for administrative purposes of the foreign               authorities.
     vehicles discriminated against, by issuing new registration
     documents only for vehicles which had been given type-                — Infringement of Article 4(3) of Directive 75/440/EEC: the
     approval, with immediate tax consequences, shows that                     use of poor-quality water for the abstraction of drinking
     they only partially took into consideration the judgment                  water, which is in principle prohibited, is possible only if
     in Feldain (1).                                                           the two cumulative conditions are complied with; those
                                                                               conditions have not been fulfilled. In numerous cases, the
                                                                               drinking water thus abstracted exceeds the maximum
(1) Case 433/85 Feldain v Services Fiscaux du Département du Haut-Rhin         permissible nitrate content; for this reason, the French
    (1987) ECR 3521.                                                           authorities state that ‘women who are pregnant or breast-
                                                                               feeding are strongly advised not to drink this water during
                                                                               the period of non-conformity’. Moreover according to the
                                                                               Commission’s findings, the French authorities have failed
                                                                               to establish management plans within the meaning of
                                                                               Article 4(3) where these have proved necessary.
                                                                           (1) OJ L 194 of 25.7.1975, p. 26.
Action brought on 16 July 1999 by the Commission of
 the European Communities against the French Republic
                         (Case C-266/99)
                         (1999/C 281/06)
                                                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal d’ar-
An action against the French Republic was brought before the               rondissement de Luxembourg by judgment of that court
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 16 July                    of 15 July 1999 in the case of Urbing (née Adam) against
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,                         the Administration de l’Enregistrement et des Domaines
represented by Michel Nolin, of its Legal Service, acting as
Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                              (Case C-267/99)
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                                              (1999/C 281/07)
the Court should:                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal d’arron-
— declare that, by failing to take the necessary measures to               dissement de Luxembourg (District Court, Luxembourg) of
     ensure that surface water intended for the abstraction of             15 July 1999, received at the Court Registry on 19 July 1999,
     drinking water conforms to the values laid down pursuant              for a preliminary ruling in the case of Urbing (née Adam)
     to Article 3, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its            against the Administration de l’Enregistrement et des Domai-
     obligations under Directive 75/440/EEC (1), in particular             nes (Land Registration and Estates Department) on the follow-
     Article 4 thereof;                                                    ing questions:
— order the French Republic to pay the costs.                              1. Is the concept of a liberal profession as referred to
                                                                               in point 2 of Annex F to the Sixth Council Directive
                                                                               77/388/EEC on the harmonisation of the laws of the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                Member States relating to turnover taxes (1) an autonomous
                                                                               concept of Community law?
The infringement found by the Commission in its reasoned
opinion to have been committed relates exclusively to the                  2. If so, does that concept cover the profession of property
failure properly to apply the directive in the region of Brittany              agent?
alone.
— Infringement of Article 4(1) of Directive 75/440/EEC: in                 (1) OJ L 145 of 13.6.77, p. 1.
     the 4 departments concerned, the surface water fails,
     constantly and on a wide scale, to conform to the values
     laid down pursuant to Article 3.


title: Case T-1/14: Action brought on 7 January 2014 — Aluminios Cortizo and Cortizo Cartera v Commission

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/49

         Action brought on 7 January 2014 — Aluminios Cortizo and Cortizo Cartera v Commission
   (Case T-1/14)
   2014/C 52/94
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Aluminios Cortizo, SAU (Extramundi, Spain) and Cortizo Cartera, SL (Extramundi, Spain) (represented by: A. Beiras Cal, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision in its entirety;

               —

               in the alternative, annul the order to reimburse the State aid; and

               —

               in the further alternative, quantify that aid in accordance with the investor’s actual net profit.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The contested decision in the present proceedings is the same as that in Case T-515/13 Spain v Commission (OJ 2013 C 336, p. 29).
   In support of their action, the applicants rely on six pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107 TFEU, since the State aid granted to the investor entailed neither selectivity nor distortion.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU on the basis of the complete failure to state reasons for the exclusion of the ship-owner and/or shipyard as the recipient of the bulk of the aid.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality — in connection with the loss of profit — in requiring the investor to reimburse aid which was transferred to a third party.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations, since the Commission, through letters of the Commissioner, and by its inactivity, gave rise to the legitimate appearance that the ‘SEAF’ was lawful.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty, since the imposition of a duty to reimburse aid which was not received/transferred by the investor constitutes confiscation without any legal basis.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment, since the measures declared to be incompatible were allowed in other proceedings.


title: Case F-111/14: Action brought on 17 October 2014  — ZZ and Others v Commission

text:
               12.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/54

         Action brought on 17 October 2014 — ZZ and Others v Commission
   (Case F-111/14)
   (2015/C 007/67)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ and Others (represented by: T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The declaration that Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and Annex I thereto, together with the corresponding transitional provisions, are unlawful and annulment of the decisions of the Appointing Authority relating to the promotion of the eight applicants, who are grade AST 9 officials, in the context of the 2014 annual promotion exercise.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Principally: declare Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and Annex I thereto, together with the corresponding transitional provisions, unlawful;

               —

               annul the decisions of the Appointing Authority, of an individual and of a general scope, to block any possibility of promotion concerning the applicants, as grade AST 9 officials, in the context of the 2014 annual promotion exercise;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs;

               —

               in the alternative: annul the decisions of the Appointing Authority, of an individual and of a general scope, to block any possibility of promotion concerning the applicants, as grade AST 9 officials, in the context of the 2014 annual promotion exercise;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 April 2005 in Joined Cases T-380/02 and T-128/03: Success-Marketing Unternehmensberatungsgesellschaft mbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Application for restitutio in integrum — Conditions governing notification of decisions and communications by OHIM — Facsimile transmission)

text:
               25.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/13

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 19 April 2005
   in Joined Cases T-380/02 and T-128/03: Success-Marketing Unternehmensberatungsgesellschaft mbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for restitutio in integrum - Conditions governing notification of decisions and communications by OHIM - Facsimile transmission)
   (2005/C 155/26)
   Language of the case: German
   In Joined Cases T-380/02 and T-128/03 Success-Marketing Unternehmensberatungsgesellschaft mbH, established in Linz (Austria), represented by G. Secklehner and C. Ofner, avocats, with an address for service in Luxembourg v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: J. Weberndörfer and G. Schneider), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the Court of First Instance in Case T-128/03, being Chipita International SA, established in Athens (Greece), represented by P. Hoffmann, avocat — actions for annulment brought, first, against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 September 2002 (Case R 26/2001-1) rejecting the application by the applicant for restitutio in integrum and, secondly, of the decision of 13 February 2003 and/or the decision of 13 March 2003 of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM (Case R 1124/2000-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Success-Marketing Unternehmensberatungsgesellschaft mbH and Chipita International SA, — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President, M. E. Martins Ribeiro and K. Jürimäe, Judges; I. Natsinas, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 19 April 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the actions;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay its own costs as well as those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM);

               3.

               Orders Chipita International SA to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 101 of 26.4.2003.


title: Case C-366/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Salzburg by order of that court of 16 August 2004 in the case of Georg Schwarz against Bürgermeister der Landeshauptstadt Salzburg

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/22

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Salzburg by order of that court of 16 August 2004 in the case of Georg Schwarz against Bürgermeister der Landeshauptstadt Salzburg
   (Case C-366/04)
   (2004/C 262/37)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Salzburg (Independent Administrative Chamber of the Land of Salzburg, Austria) of 16 August 2004, received at the Court Registry on 23 August 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Georg Schwarz against Bürgermeister der Landeshauptstadt Salzburg on the following question:
   Do Articles 28 to 30 EC in conjunction with Article 7 of Council Directive 93/43/EEC of 14 June 1993 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (1) preclude a national provision, adopted before the entry into force of that directive, under which it is prohibited to offer for sale sugar confectionery or products made using sugar substitutes, without wrapping, from vending machines?

      (1)  OJ L 175, p. 1.


title: Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 December 2000 in Case C-91/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato): Questore di Imperia v Gianluca Barrese and Andrea De Sanctis (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Question identical to one on which the Court has already ruled)

text:
14.7.2001                  EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                                 C 200/29
                       ORDER OF THE COURT                                                              ORDER OF THE COURT
                            (Third Chamber)                                                                 (Third Chamber)
                         of 15 December 2000                                                             of 15 December 2000
in Case C-90/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                        in Case C-91/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Consiglio di Stato): Questore di Milano v Chiara                            the Consiglio di Stato): Questore di Imperia v Gianluca
                                 Picerno (1)                                                     Barrese and Andrea De Sanctis (1)
(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Question                            (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Question
     identical to one on which the Court has already ruled)                          identical to one on which the Court has already ruled)
                             (2001/C 200/51)                                                                 (2001/C 200/52)
                       (Language of the case: Italian)                                                 (Language of the case: Italian)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                      in the European Court Reports)                                                  in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-90/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                    In Case C-91/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Consiglio di Stato                  the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Consiglio di Stato
(Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending                     (Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Questore di Milano and Chiara                         before that court between Questore di Imperia and Gianluca
Picerno on the interpretation of the provisions of the EC Treaty                Barrese and Andrea De Sanctis on the interpretation of the
on freedom to provide services — the Court (Third Chamber),                     provisions of the EC Treaty on freedom to provide services —
composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, J.-                          the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, Presi-
P. Puissochet (Rapporteur) and F. Macken, Judges; C. Stix-                      dent of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur) and F. Mack-
Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an                       en, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,
order on 15 December 2000, the operative part of which is as                    has made an order on 15 December 2000, the operative part
follows:                                                                        of which is as follows:
The EC Treaty provisions on freedom to provide services do not                  The EC Treaty provisions on freedom to provide services do not
preclude national legislation, such as the Italian legislation, which           preclude national legislation, such as the Italian legislation, which
reserves unto certain bodies the right to take bets on sporting events,         reserves unto certain bodies the right to take bets on sporting events,
if that legislation is in fact justified by social-policy objectives designed   if that legislation is in fact justified by social-policy objectives designed
to limit the harmful effects of such activities and if the restrictions         to limit the harmful effects of such activities and if the restrictions
which it imposes are not disproportionate in relation to those                  which it imposes are not disproportionate in relation to those
objectives.                                                                     objectives.
(1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.                                                       (1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.


title: Case C-567/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris (France) lodged on 9 December 2014 — Genentech Inc. v Hoechst GmbH, formerly Hoechst AG, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH

text:
               2.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/12

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris (France) lodged on 9 December 2014 — Genentech Inc. v Hoechst GmbH, formerly Hoechst AG, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH
      (Case C-567/14)
      (2015/C 073/18)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Cour d’appel de Paris

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Genentech Inc.

         Defendant: Hoechst GmbH, formerly Hoechst AG, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH

         Question referred

      ‘Must the provisions of Article 81 of the Treaty (now Article 101 TFEU) be interpreted as precluding effect being given, where patents are revoked, to a licence agreement which requires the licencee to pay royalties for the sole use of the rights attached to the licensed patent?’