title: Case T-214/17: Action brought on 6 April 2017 — Out of the blue v EUIPO — Dubois and MFunds USA (FUNNY BANDS)

text:
               6.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/29

         Action brought on 6 April 2017 — Out of the blue v EUIPO — Dubois and MFunds USA (FUNNY BANDS)
   (Case T-214/17)
   (2017/C 178/43)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Out of the blue KG (Lilienthal, Germany) (represented by: G. Hasselblatt, V. Töbelmann and A. Zarm, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Frédéric Dubois (Lasne, Belgium) and MFunds USA LLC (Miami Beach, Florida, United States)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietors of the trade mark at issue: Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘FUNNY BANDS’ — EU trade mark No 9 350 794

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20/01/2017 in Case R 1081/2016-2)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               overturn the contested decision;

               —

               declare the EU trade mark No 009 350 794‘FUNNY BANDS’ invalid pursuant to Articles 52(1)(a), 7(1)(b) and (c) EUTMR;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay its own costs as well as the costs of the applicant;

               —

               in the event that the EUTM Proprietors join in these proceedings as an intervening party, order it to bear its own costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-385/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Verden (Germany) lodged on 26 June 2017 — Torsten Hein v Albert Holzkamm GmbH & Co.

text:
               25.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 318/7

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Verden (Germany) lodged on 26 June 2017 — Torsten Hein v Albert Holzkamm GmbH & Co.
   (Case C-385/17)
   (2017/C 318/11)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Arbeitsgericht Verden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Torsten Hein

      Defendant: Albert Holzkamm GmbH & Co.

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are Article 31 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC (1) of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time to be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which it may be provided in collective agreements that reductions in earnings occurring in the period of calculation as a result of short-time work affect the calculation of the payment for annual leave with the result that the worker receives a lower remuneration for annual leave for the duration of the period of annual leave of at least four weeks, or receives a lower allowance in lieu of leave after the employment relationship has ended, than he would receive if the calculation of the remuneration for annual leave were based on the average earnings which the worker would have received in the period of calculation without such reductions in earnings? If so, what is the maximum percentage, with reference to the worker’s full average earnings, that a collectively agreed reduction, permitted by national legislation, of the remuneration for annual leave may have as a result of short-time work in the period of calculation in order for the interpretation of that national legislation to be regarded as in conformity with EU law?

               2.

               If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Do the general principle of legal certainty laid down by EU law and the principle of non-retroactivity require that the possibility of relying on the interpretation which the Court places, in the preliminary ruling to be given in the present case, on Article 31 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and on Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time be limited in time, with effect for all parties, because the highest national courts have previously ruled that the relevant national legislation and collectively agreed rules are not amenable to an interpretation in conformity with EU law? If the Court answers this question in the negative: Is it compatible with EU law if, on the basis of national law, the national courts grant protection of legitimate expectations to employers who have relied on the continued application of the case-law developed by the highest national courts, or is the grant of protection of legitimate expectations reserved for the Court of Justice of the European Union?

      (1)  Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 24 April 1996 in Case T-6/94, A. v. European Parliament (Officials - Unauthorized absence - Remuneration - Article 60 of the Staff Regulations - Inadmissibility)

text:
1 . 6 . 96               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 158/ 13
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                          of 24 April 1996                                                      of 24 April 1996
in Joined Cases T-551 /93 , T-231/94 , T-232/94 , T-233/94                      in Case T-6/94 , A. v. European Parliament ( )
and T-234/94 Industrias Pesqueras Campos SA and Others                  (Officials — Unauthorized absence — Remuneration —
       v. Commission of the European Communities ( 1 )                      Article 60 of the Staff Regulations — Inadmissibility)
(Community financial aid — Application for compensation                                            ( 96/C 158 /33 )
in the event ofnon-payment — Application for annulment
                  of decisions withdrawing aid)
                            ( 96/C 158 /32 )                                            (Language of the case: Frencb)
                 (Language of the case: Spanisb)                        In Case T-6/94 A, a former official of the European
                                                                        Parliament, residing in Luxembourg, represented by
                                                                        Catherine Thill-Kamitaki , of the Luxembourg Bar, with an
In Joined Cases T-551 /93 , T-231 /94, T-232/94 , T-233/94              address for service in Luxembourg at her Chambers ,
and T-234/94, Industrias Pesqueras Campos SA, a company                 15 Avenue du Bois, v. European Parliament (Agent: Ezio
with its registered office at Vigo ( Spain ), represented in Case       Perillo ) — application for an order requiring the European
T-551 /93 by Antonio Creus and Xavier Ruiz, both of the                 Parliament to pay to the applicant, pursuant to the fourth
Barcelona Bar, and by José Ramon Garci'a-Gallardo, of the               paragraph of Article 88 of the Staff Regulations of Officials
Burgos Bar, with an address for service in Brussels at the              of the European Communities , the total due in respect of,
Cuatrecasas Chambers , 78 Avenue d'Auderghem, and in                    first, the salary not paid to her by the European Parliament
Case T-233/94 by Santiago Martinez Lage, Rafael                         for the months of December 1990 , February, March, May,
Allendesalazar Corcho and Javier Vias Alonso, all of the                June and half of July 1991 , second, the salary not paid to her
Madrid Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                for the period from 1 August 1991 to 31 December 1992
the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-rue, Transacciones                 ( less the partial allowances received by her for that period )
Maritimas SA , Recursos Marinos SA, Makuspesca SA,                      and, third, the allowance to which she considers herself
companies with their registered offices at Vigo ( Spain ),              entitled for leave not taken in 1992 , together with interest
represented by Santiago Martinez Lage, Rafael                           thereon at the rate prescribed by law from the date when
 Allendesalazar Corcho and Javier Vias Alonso , all of the              each payment fell due until the date of actual payment — the
Madrid Bar, with and address for service in Luxembourg at               Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber ), composed
the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-rue, against the                   of: H. Kirschner, President, and C. W. Bellamy
 Commission of the European Communities ( Agents :                      and A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal
 Francisco Santaolalla, Amparo Alcover and Blanca Vila                  Administrator , for the Registrar , has given a judgment on
 Costa ) — application for, in Case T-551 /93 , compensation            24 April 1996 , in which it:
 for the loss caused to the applicant by the Commission's
 non-payment of the Community financial aid which it had                 1 , dismisses the action as inadmissible;
 granted by its Decision C(89 ) 632/73 of 26 April 1989 ( file
 No ES/545/89/01 ) for the construction of the fishing vessel
 ' Escualo', and , in Cases T-231 /94 , T-232/94 , T-233/94 and         2 , orders the parties to bear their own costs, including
 T-234/94, for the annulment, respectively, of Commission                     those relating to the application for interim measures.
 Decisions C(94 ) 670/ 1 , C(94 ) 670/2 , C(94 ) 670/3 and C(94 )
 670/4, whereby the Commission withdrew Community
                                                                         (') OJ No C 59 , 26 . 2 . 1994 .
 financial aid granted to each of the four applicants for the
 construction of fishing vessels and required three of the
 applicants to repay the amounts already paid — the Court of
 First Instance ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of: K. Lenaerts,
 President, P. Lindh and A. Potocki, Judges; J. Palacio
 Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
 judgment on 24 April 1996 in which it:
                                                                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  1 , dismisses the actions for annulment in Cases T-231 /94,                                   of 25 April 1996
       T-232/94 , T-233 /94 and T-234/94 -,                              in Case T-274/94 : Antonio Castellacci v . Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities C )
                                                                         (Officials — Household allowance — Criterion ofresidence
 2 , dismisses the action for damages in Case T-551 /93;
                                                                         — Allowance for a person treated as a dependent child —
                                                                                Recovery of undue payment)
  3 , orders the applicants to pay the costs, including those of                                    ( 96/C 158/34 )
       the interim proceedings.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
  (') OJ No C 1 , 4 . 1 . 1994 and OJ No C 218 , 6 . 8 . 1994 .
                                                                         In Case T-274/94 : Antonio Castellacci, an official of the
                                                                         Commission of the European Communities, residing in


title: Case F-8/07: Action brought on 26 January 2007 — Chassagne v Commission

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/56

         Action brought on 26 January 2007 — Chassagne v Commission
   (Case F-8/07)
   (2007/C 82/118)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Olivier Chassagne (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: Y. Minatchy, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               Annul the Commission's decisions dated 23 June 2006 and 27 October 2006 and adopt the measures arising from such annulment for the applicant;

               —

               Order every measure necessary to safeguard the applicant's rights and interests;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay damages of EUR 1;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the contested decisions, the Commission transferred the applicant, an official in DG TREN with the status, at that time, of half-time secondment for trade union activities, from that DG's list to the ‘A*10 list in Annex IV ’under the 2006 promotion procedure.
   In support of his action, the applicant claims, in particular, that the decisions: (i) infringe the principle of the obligation to state reasons; (ii) are devoid of legal basis, and (iii) misapply Article 6(3)(b) of the General provisions for implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations.


title: Case T-139/09: Judgment of the General Court of (Sixth Chamber) of 27 September 2012 — France v Commission (State aid — Fruit and vegetable sector — ‘Contingency plans’ seeking to support the fruit and vegetable market in France — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market — Concept of State aid — State resources — Co-financing by a public institution and by voluntary contributions from farmers’ organisations — Arguments not raised during the administrative procedure — Duty to state the reasons on which the decision is based)

text:
               17.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/20

         Judgment of the General Court of (Sixth Chamber) of 27 September 2012 — France v Commission
   (Case T-139/09) (1)

   (State aid - Fruit and vegetable sector - ‘Contingency plans’ seeking to support the fruit and vegetable market in France - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market - Concept of State aid - State resources - Co-financing by a public institution and by voluntary contributions from farmers’ organisations - Arguments not raised during the administrative procedure - Duty to state the reasons on which the decision is based)
   2012/C 355/41
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: French Republic (represented: initially by E. Belliard, G. de Bergues and A.-L. During, and subsequently by E. Belliard, G. de Bergues and J. Gstalter, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 203 final of 28 January 2009, concerning the ‘contingency plans’ in the fruit and vegetable sectors implemented by France.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 141, 20.6.2009.


title: Case T-592/11: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2013 — Anbouba v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Syria — Freezing of funds and economic resources — Presumption of innocence — Burden of proof — Manifest error of assessment — Rights of defence — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               26.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/25

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2013 — Anbouba v Council
   (Case T-592/11) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Syria - Freezing of funds and economic resources - Presumption of innocence - Burden of proof - Manifest error of assessment - Rights of defence - Obligation to state reasons)
   2013/C 313/49
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Issam Anbouba (Homs, Syria) (represented by: M.-A. Bastin, J.-M. Salva and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented: initially by R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro and M.-M. Joséphidès, then R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro and A. Vitro, Agents)

      Re:

   First, application for annulment of Council Decision 2011/684/CFSP of 13 October 2011 amending Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2011 L 269, p. 33), of Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP of 1 December 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/273/CFSP (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 56), of Council Regulation (EU) No 1011/2011 of 13 October 2011 amending Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2011 L 269, p. 18), of Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and repealing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 (OJ 2012 L 16, p. 1), and of Council Implementing Regulation No 410/2012 of 14 May 2012 Implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation No 36/2012 (OJ 2012 L 126, p.3) in so far as the applicant is named in the list of persons subject to the restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, and, second, application for payment of compensation for damage suffered.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders Mr Issam Anbouba to pay his own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof, by order of that court of 29 October 1998, in the case of Josef Plum v. AOK Rheinland, Cologne Regional Office (Case C-404/98) (1999/C 1/16)

text:
4.1.1999              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 1/9
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale                 1. Is a person who is employed by an undertaking (a
Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio, by order of that                    company in the form of a Besloten Vennootschap
court of 11 March 1998, in the case of A.T.B. Ð Agricola                (private limited company) incorporated under
Tabacchi Bonavicina Snc, a firm owned by Federica                       Netherlands law) which has its registered office in a
Marcati, and Others v. Ministero per le Politiche Agricole              Member State (the Netherlands) and maintains an
                       and Mario Pittaro                                office there but performs its activities primarily in the
                                                                        territory of another Member State and in the past has
                        (Case C-402/98)                                 performed them exclusively in the latter Member State
                         (1999/C 1/15)                                  (in this case, the carrying out of building projects in
                                                                        Germany) a person employed in the territory of the
                                                                        first Member State (Article 13(2)(a) of Council
                                                                        Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 in the version of 2 June
                                                                        1983 (OJ L 230, 22.8.1983, p. 8.)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Tribunale
Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio (Lazio Regional
Administrative Court) of 11 March 1998, which was                   2. If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative, is
received at the Court Registry on 11 November 1998, for                 there a posting' within the meaning of Article 14(1)(a)
a preliminary ruling in the case of A.T.B. Ð Agricola                   of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 where a
Tabacchi Bonavicina Snc, a firm owned by Federica                       building contractor with its registered office in a
Marcati, and Others v. Ministero per le Politiche Agricole              Member State employs its employees primarily on
and Mario Pittaro, on the following question:                           building projects in another Member State and has
                                                                        employed them exclusively there in the past over a
                                                                        number of years but the anticipated duration of each
                                                                        individual building project does not exceed twelve
By introducing innovative arrangements for the rules on                 months?
premiums for the production of tobacco when planting
had already been carried out and producers had made
investments in accordance with reasonable assessment
criteria based on the Community rules in force at the time
of sowing and planting out in the fields, do Article 2 of
Council Regulation (EC) No 711/95 (1) Article 20 of
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1066/95 (2) and Article 2             Reference for a preliminary ruling by Stockholms
of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1067/95 (3), infringe              Tingsrätten (District Court, Stockholm) by order of
the principles governing sound organisation of the                  that court of 18 September 1998 in the case of
agricultural market in tobacco and the principle of                 Konsumentombudsmannen (KO) (Consumer Ombudsman)
protection of legitimate expectations?                                  v. Gourmet International Products Aktiebolag (GIP)
                                                                                (Case C-405/98)
(1) OJ L 73, 1.4.1995, p. 13.
(2) OJ L 108, 13.5.1995, p. 5.                                                             (1999/C 1/17)
(3) OJ L 108, 13.5.1995, p. 11.
                                                                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                    European Communities by order of 18 September 1998
                                                                    Stockholms Tingsrätten (District Court, Stockholm),
                                                                    which was received at the Court Registry on 16 November
                                                                    1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                    Konsumentombudsmannen (KO) (Consumer Ombudsman)
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                         v. Gourmet International Products Aktiebolag (GIP) on the
Bundesgerichtshof, by order of that court of 29 October             following questions:
1998, in the case of Josef Plum v. AOK Rheinland,
                   Cologne Regional Office
                        (Case C-404/98)                             1. Is Article 30 or Article 59 of the Treaty of Rome to be
                                                                        interpreted as precluding national legislation entailing
                         (1999/C 1/16)                                  a general prohibition of alcohol advertising, such as
                                                                        the prohibition laid down in Article 2 of
                                                                        Alkoholreklamlagen?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesgerichtshof              2. If so, can such a prohibition be regarded as justified
(Federal Court of Justice) of 29 October 1998, received at              and proportionate for the protection of life and health
the Court Registry on 16 November 1998, for a                           of humans?
preliminary ruling in the case of Josef Plum v. AOK
Rheinland, Cologne Regional Office, on the following
questions:


title: Case C-311/10: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 October 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Poland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2007/46/EC — Approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles — Failure to transpose within the period prescribed — Incomplete transposition)

text:
               17.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 370/13

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 October 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-311/10) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2007/46/EC - Approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed - Incomplete transposition)
   2011/C 370/20
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Zavvos and Ł. Habiak, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Szpunar, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the provisions necessary to give effect to Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (Framework Directive) (OJ 2007 L 263, p. 1)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to communicate to the European Commission the laws, regulations and administrative provisions implementing Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations sunder Article 48 of that directive;

               2.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement Directive 2007/46, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 48 of that directive;

               3.

               Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 246, 11.9.2010.


title: Case C-91/99: Action brought on 17 March 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic

text:
5.6.1999                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 160/5
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal                        The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
Administratif of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
(Second Chamber) by judgment of that court of 11 March                      — declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
1999 in the case of Patrick Zurstrassen v. Administration                        administrative provisions necessary to comply fully and
                  des Contributions Directes                                     correctly with Commission Directive 96/4/EC (1), Euratom
                                                                                of 16 February 1996 amending Directive 91/321/EEC on
                                                                                infant formulae and follow-on formulae, the Portuguese
                           (Case C-87/99)                                        Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the third
                                                                                paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty and Article 2 of
                                                                                Directive 96/4/EC,
                          (1999/C 160/09)
                                                                            — in the alternative, declare that by failing to inform the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                           Commission forthwith of such measures, the Portuguese
European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal Admini-                       Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the same
                                                                                provisions;
stratif (Administrative court) of the Grand Duchy of Luxem-
bourg (Second Chamber) of 11 March 1999, which was
received at the Court Registry on 12 March 1999, for a                      — order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
preliminary ruling in the case of Patrick Zurstrassen v.
Administration des Contributions Directes on the following
question:                                                                   Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
— Do Article 48 of the Treaty on European Union and Article                 The contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
    1(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 (1) of the Council on               are similar to those in Case C-78/99 (2), the period for
    freedom of movement for workers within the Community,                   implementing the directive expired on 31 March 1997.
    of 15 October 1968 preclude national rules which subject
    the joint assessment to tax of two spouses and their
    classification in tax bracket II, which allows the spouses a            (1) OJ L 49, 22.2.1996, p. 12.
    lighter tax burden under certain circumstances than that                (2) See p. 3 of this Official Journal.
    imposed on them if taxed individually, to the condition
    that the two spouses — who are not separated either de
    facto or by virtue of a judicial decision — must have their
    respective residences for tax purposes in the same State,
    and which thereby exclude from that tax regime a spouse
    who establishes himself in one Member State, leaving the
    rest of his family in another Member State?
                                                                            Action brought on 17 March 1999 by the Commission
(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475.                          of the European Communities against the Portuguese
                                                                                Republic
                                                                                (Case C-91/99)
                                                                                (1999/C 160/11)
                                                                            An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before
                                                                            the Court of Justice on 17 March 1999 by the Commission of
Action brought on 16 March 1999 by the Commission                           the European Communities, represented by Ana Maria Alves
of the European Communities against the Portuguese                          Vieira, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for
                              Republic                                      service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
                                                                            Cruz, also of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                           (Case C-90/99)
                                                                            The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
                          (1999/C 160/10)                                   — declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
                                                                                period all the measures needed to comply fully with
                                                                                Council Directive 96/43/EC (1) of 26 June 1996 amending
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before                     and consolidating Directive 85/73/EEC (2) and amending
the Court of Justice on 16 March 1999 by the Commission of                       Directives 90/675/EEC (3) and 91/496/EEC (4), the Portu-
the European Communities, represented by Francisco de Sousa                      guese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
Fialho, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for               Treaty,
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
Cruz, also of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                  — order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 160/6                   EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         5.6.1999
Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support                    Action brought on 17 March 1999 by the Commission
                                                                          of the European Communities against the Portuguese
                                                                                Republic
The contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
are similar to those in Case C-78/99 (5); the period for
implementing the directive expired on 1 July 1997.                                                     (Case C-93/99)
                                                                                (1999/C 160/13)
( 1) OJ L 162, 1.7.1996, p. 1.
( 2) OJ L 32, 5.2.1985, p. 14.
( 3) OJ L 373, 31.12.1990, p. 1.                                          An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before
( 4) OJ L 268, 24.9.1991, p. 56.                                          the Court of Justice on 17 March 1999 by the Commission of
( 5) See p. 3 of this Official Journal.                                   the European Communities, represented by Ana Maria Alves
                                                                          Vieira, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for
                                                                          service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
                                                                          Cruz, also of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
                                                                          — declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
Action brought on 17 March 1999 by the Commission                               period all the measures needed to comply fully with
of the European Communities against the Portuguese                              Council Directive 96/22/EC (1) of 29 April 1996 repealing
                                 Republic                                       Directives 81/602/EEC (2) and 88/299/EEC (3), the Portu-
                                                                                guese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
                                                                                Treaty,
                             (Case C-92/99)
                                                                          — order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
                            (1999/C 160/12)
                                                                          Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice on 17 March 1999 by the Commission of
                                                                          The contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
the European Communities, represented by Ana Maria Alves
                                                                          are similar to those in Case C-78/99 (4); the period for
Vieira, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for
                                                                          implementing the Directive expired on 1 July 1997.
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
Cruz, also of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                          ( 1) OJ L 125, 23.5.1996, p. 10.
The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:                    ( 2) OJ L 222 , 7.8.1981, p. 32.
                                                                          ( 3) OJ L 128, 21.5.1988, p. 36.
                                                                          ( 4) See p. 3 of this Official Journal.
— declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
      period all the measures needed to comply fully with
      Council Directive 96/23/EC (1) of 29 April 1996 repealing
      Directives 85/358/EEC (2) and 86/469/EEC (3) and
      Decisions 89/187/EEC(4) and 91/664/EEC (5), the Portu-
      guese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
      Treaty,
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverga-
— order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.                         beamt by order of that tribunal of 5 March 1999 in the
                                                                          review procedure of ARGE Gewässerschutz v. Bundesmi-
                                                                                nisterium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft
Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
                                                                                (Case C-94/99)
The contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
are similar to those in Case C-78/99 (6); the period for                                              (1999/C 160/14)
implementing the directive expired on 1 July 1997.
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
( 1) OJ L 125, 23.5.1996, p. 10.                                          European Communities by an order of the Bundesvergabeamt
( 2) OJ L 191, 23.7.1985, p. 46.                                          (Federal Procurement Office), Austria, of 5 March 1999, which
( 3) OJ L 275, 26.9.1986, p. 36.                                          was received at the Court Registry on 17 March 1999, for a
( 4) OJ L 66, 10.3.1989, p. 37.                                           preliminary ruling in the review procedure of ARGE Gewässer-
( 5) OJ L 368, 31.12.1991, p. 17.                                         schutz v. Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft on
( 6) See p. 3 of this Official Journal.                                   the following questions:
                                                                          I.    Does the decision of a contracting authority to admit to an
                                                                                award procedure bodies which receive subsidies of any


title: Joined Cases T-27/03, T-46/03, T-58/03, T-79/03, T-80/03, T-97/03 and T-98/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 October 2007 — SP and Others v Commission (Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Producers of reinforcing bars — Decision establishing an infringement of Article 65 CS — Decision based on the ECSC Treaty after expiry of that treaty — Lack of competence of the Commission)

text:
               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/36

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 October 2007 — SP and Others v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-27/03, T-46/03, T-58/03, T-79/03, T-80/03, T-97/03 and T-98/03) (1)

   (Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Producers of reinforcing bars - Decision establishing an infringement of Article 65 CS - Decision based on the ECSC Treaty after expiry of that treaty - Lack of competence of the Commission)
   (2007/C 297/73)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant in Case T-27/03: SP SpA (Brescia, Italy) (represented by: G. Belotti and N. Pisani, lawyers)

      Applicant in Case T-46/03: Leali SpA (Odolo, Italy) (represented by: G. Vezzoli and G. Belotti, lawyers)

      Applicant in Case T-58/03: Acciaierie e Ferriere Leali Luigi SpA (Brescia) (represented by: G. Vezzosi, G. Belotti, E. Piromalli and C. Carmignani, lawyers)

      Applicant in Case T-79/03: Industrie Riunite Odolesi SpA (IRO) (Odolo) (represented by: A. Giardina, lawyer)

      Applicant in Case T-80/03: Lucchini SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented initially by A. Santa Maria and C. Biscaretti di Ruffia, and subsequently by M. Delfino, M. van der Woude, S. Fontanelli and P. Sorvillo, lawyers)

      Applicants in Case T-97/03: Ferriera Valsabbia SpA (Odolo) and Valsabbia Investimenti SpA (Odolo) (represented by: D. Fosselard and P. Fattori, lawyers)

      Applicant in Case T-98/03: Alfa Acciai SpA (Brescia) (represented by: D. Fosselard, P. Fattori and G. d'Andria, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Pignatoro-Nolin and A. Whelan, Agents, assisted in Cases T-27/03 and T-58/03 by M. Moretto and in Cases T-79/03, T-97/03 and T-98/03 by P. Manzini, lawyers)
   Intervener in support of the applicants: Italian Republic (represented by: I. Braguglia and M. Fiorilli, Agents)
   Re:
   Applications for a declaration of the non-existence and for annulment in whole or in part of Commission Decision C(2002) 5087 final of 17 December 2002, relating to a proceeding under Article 65 CS (Case COMP/37.956 — Reinforcing bars).
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision C (2002) 5087 final of 17 December 2002 relating to a proceeding under Article 65 CS (Case COMP/37.956 — Reinforcing bars) with regard to SP SpA, Leali SpA, Acciaierie e Ferriere Leali Luigi SpA, Industrie Riunite Odolesi SpA (IRO), Lucchini SpA, Ferriera Valsabbia SpA, Valsabbia Investimenti SpA and Alfa Acciai SpA;

               2.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs, and to pay those incurred by SP, Leali, Acciaierie e Ferriere Leali Luigi, IRO, Lucchini, Ferriera Valsabbia, Valsabbia Investimenti and Alfa Acciai, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings in Cases T-46/03 and T-79/03;

               3.

               Orders the Italian Republic to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 70, 22.3.2003.


title: Case C-100/07 P: Order of the Court of 4 October 2007 — É.R. and Others v Council of the European Union, Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Non-contractual liability of the Community — Bovine spongiform encephalopathy — Lack of adequate measures taken by the Council and the European Commission to prevent the spread of the disease — Appeal manifestly unfounded)

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/24

         Order of the Court of 4 October 2007 — É.R. and Others v Council of the European Union, Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-100/07 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Non-contractual liability of the Community - Bovine spongiform encephalopathy - Lack of adequate measures taken by the Council and the European Commission to prevent the spread of the disease - Appeal manifestly unfounded)
   (2007/C 315/43)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: É.R., O.O., J.R., A.R., B.P.R., T.D., J.D., D.D., V.D.; D.E., É.E., C.R.; H.R., M.S.R., I.R., B.R., M.R. and C.S. (represented by: F. Honnorat, lawyer)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: F. Florindo Gijón and Z. Kupčová, Agents), Commission of the European Communities (represented by: T. van Rijn and G. Berscheid, lawyers)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 13 December 2006 in Case T-138/03 É.R. and Others v Council and Commission, by which the Court dismissed as partially inadmissible and, for the remainder, as unfounded, the action brought by the applicants seeking compensation under Article 235 EC and the second paragraph of Article 288 EC for the damage allegedly suffered as a consequence of the infection and subsequent death of members of their families who suffered from a new variant of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, which was linked to the outbreak and spread in Europe of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, for which the Council and the Commission were allegedly responsible — Conditions giving rise to non contractual liability of the Communities
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               É.R., O.O., J.R., A.R., B.P.R., T.D., J.D., D.D., V.D.; D.E., É.E.; C.R.; H.R., M.S.R., I.R., B.R., M.R.; and C.S are ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 129 of 9.6.2007.


title: Case T-561/13: Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — Spain v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Rural development programme for Galicia (2007 2013) — Rural development support measures — Compensation payments for natural handicaps — Expenses incurred by Spain — On-the-spot checks — Obligation to carry out a census of animals — Article 10(2) and (4) and Article 14(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006 — Article 35(1) of Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 — Default procedure)

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/49

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-561/13) (1)

   ((EAGGF - Guarantee Section - EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Rural development programme for Galicia (2007 2013) - Rural development support measures - Compensation payments for natural handicaps - Expenses incurred by Spain - On-the-spot checks - Obligation to carry out a census of animals - Article 10(2) and (4) and Article 14(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006 - Article 35(1) of Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 - Default procedure))
   (2015/C 302/63)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: initially N. Díaz Abad, then M. Sampol Pucurull, abogados del Estado)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: I. Galindo Martín and P. Rossi, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for partial annulment of Commission Implementing Decision 2013/433/EU of 13 August 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2013 L 219, p. 49) in so far as it concerns expenditure incurred by the Kingdom of Spain amounting to EUR 7 57  968,97.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 367, 14.12.2013.


title: Case T-188/99: Action brought on 20 August 1999 by Euroalliages against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
30.10.1999               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 314/11
Action brought on 20 August 1999 by Euroalliages against                   Action brought on 25 August 1999 by David Petrie,
        the Commission of the European Communities                         Victoria Jane Primhak, David Verzoni and A.L.L.S.I. (Asso-
                                                                           ciazione Lettori di Lingua Straniera in Italia) against the
                          (Case T-188/99)                                           Commission of the European Communities
                          (1999/C 314/25)                                                           (Case T-191/99)
                     (Language of the case: French)                                                 (1999/C 314/26)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on                                        (Language of the case: Italian)
20 August 1999 by Euroalliages (Comité de Liaison des
Industries de Ferro-Alliages), an association established in
Brussels, represented by Dominique Voillemot and Olivier
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Prost, of the Paris Bar.
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 25 August 1999 by David Petrie,
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:              Victoria Jane Primhak, David Verzoni and A.L.L.S.I. (Associa-
                                                                           zione Lettori di Lingua Straniera in Italia), with Professor
— annul the sole article of the Commission’s decision of                   Lorenzo Picotti and Claude Medernach, of the Verona and
      4 June 1999 terminating the anti-dumping proceeding                  Luxembourg Bars, with an address for service in Luxembourg
      concerning imports of ferro-silicon originating in Egypt             at the latter’s Chambers, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt.
      and Poland;
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            — annul the European Commission’s refusal or failure
                                                                                — evident both from the letters of 3 May 1999 and 20 July
By the contested decision of 4 June 1999, the Commission                        1999, and from its neglectful conduct — to recognise the
declared that the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports                    applicants’ right of access to documents in its possession
of ferro-silicon falling within CN codes 7202 21 10,                            relating to the infringement procedure under Article 169
7202 21 90 and 7202 29 90 originating in Egypt and Poland                       of the EEC Treaty concerning the Italian Republic
was terminated.                                                                 (No 96/2208); and, in particular, annul the Commission’s
                                                                                decision of 20 July 1999, together with all other entailed
                                                                                or related measures or actions and as a consequence order
That decision had already been the subject of an initial                        the Commission to allow such access and to pay the costs
publication under number 1999/366/EC (1). Three days later,                     of the proceedings.
it was stated that that initial publication was ‘to be considered
void’ (2).
The contested decision was then published anew under number                Pleas in law and main arguments
1999/426/EC (3) and notified to the applicant.
The applicant considers:                                                   The applicants take issue with the Commission’s refusal of
                                                                           access to documents in its possession relating to the infringe-
— that that decision disregards the arguments which it                     ment procedure under Article 226 of the EEC Treaty concern-
      submitted in writing and orally to the Commission in                 ing the discriminatory character of the Italian legislation
      opposition to that termination; and                                  serving as the basis for the recruitment of university language
                                                                           assistants of foreign mother tongue — in particular, of
— that, in adopting that decision, the Commission committed                Article 28 of DPR 382/80 — and of the rules applying to
      a manifest error of assessment as regards the likelihood of          temporary teaching posts.
      a recurrence of injury within the meaning of Article 11(2)
      of the basic regulation (4).
                                                                           The contested decision is based on two different grounds. In
( 1) OJ L 142 of 5.6.1999, p. 36.
                                                                           respect of one group of documents, the pretext for refusing
(2) OJ L 144 of 9.6.1999, p. 37.                                           access was the fact that, whereas the code of conduct adopted
(3) OJ L 166 of 1.7.1999, p. 91.                                           by the Commission in 1994 refers solely to ‘own’ documents,
(4) Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on               the documents requested were for internal circulation within
     protection against dumped imports from countries not members          the Italian administration. As regards the second group of
     of the European Community (OJ L 56 of 6.3.1996, p. 1).                documents, on the other hand, the Commission dismissed the
                                                                           possibility of access on grounds of protection of the public
                                                                           interest, since they concern the infringement procedure
                                                                           initiated in respect of Italy.


title: Case C-86/15 P: Appeal brought on 20 February 2015 by Ferriera Valsabbia SpA and Valsabbia Investimenti SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 9 December 2014 in Case T-92/10 Ferriera Valsabbia and Valsabbia Investimenti v Commission

text:
               4.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 146/19

         Appeal brought on 20 February 2015 by Ferriera Valsabbia SpA and Valsabbia Investimenti SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 9 December 2014 in Case T-92/10 Ferriera Valsabbia and Valsabbia Investimenti v Commission
   (Case C-86/15 P)
   (2015/C 146/28)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellants: Ferriera Valsabbia SpA and Valsabbia Investimenti SpA (represented by: D.M. Fosselard, avocat, D. Slater, Solicitor, and A. Duron, avocate)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal for the reasons indicated below; and

               —

               giving a final ruling pursuant to Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, annul the contested decision to the extent that it concerns the appellants;

               —

               in the alternative, in the event of a finding by the Court that there are no grounds for setting aside the judgment under appeal in its entirety, reduce the fine imposed on the appellants for the reasons set out below;

               —

               in the further alternative, in the event that the Court does not give a final ruling on the case, reserve the costs and refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration, in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice;

               —

               lastly, pursuant to Article 69 of the Rules of Procedure, order the Commission to pay the costs at first instance and on appeal.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The appellants rely on the following grounds of appeal:
   By the first ground of appeal, the appellants submit that the General Court infringed Article 10 of Regulation No 773/2004 (1). In particular, the General Court held that the Commission was entitled to readopt the decision contested in the proceedings at first instance (‘the contested decision’) without first having to issue a new statement of objections.
   By the second ground of appeal, the appellants argue that the General Court infringed Article 14 of Regulation No 773/2004 in ruling that the Commission was entitled to readopt the contested decision on the basis of Regulation No 1/2003 (2) without giving the Member States’ representatives the possibility of hearing the undertakings directly.
   By the third ground of appeal, the appellants submit that the General Court infringed the principle of collegiality. The General Court held that the Commission was entitled to adopt the contested decision following a procedure in the course of which the College did not adopt the whole contested decision on a specific date, but instead adopted it in two parts on two different dates on the understanding that, together, those two parts could constitute a full decision.
   By the fourth ground of appeal, the appellants complain that there has been an infringement of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (‘the Charter’), as interpreted in the light of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘the Convention’), in so far as the General Court infringed the appellants’ right to be heard within a reasonable time. Specifically, approximately three years elapsed between the closure of the written procedure and the General Court’s decision to open the oral procedure. A delay on that scale amounted to an infringement of the right, referred to in Article 47 of the Charter, to an effective remedy and an infringement of the right to be heard within a reasonable time. The infringement of Article 47 of the Charter is particularly serious in the circumstances, in view of the fact that the appellants had to wait more than 14 years for a court (the General Court) to resolve the dispute on the merits, the Commission’s initial decision having been annulled on procedural grounds after a procedure lasting around seven years.
   By the fifth ground of appeal, the appellants complain that there has been an infringement of Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty. In particular, the appellants argue that the General Court disregarded the specific context of the ECSC Treaty and the duties of disclosure and non-discrimination imposed on undertakings in the context of that treaty, thereby misapplying the case-law of the Court relating to cartels. The appellants submit that the repeated publication over time of price lists not in alignment with the price proposed in the context of the cartel in question has had the effect of interrupting the concerted practice adopted by that cartel, whose objective was, according to the General Court, to fix minimum prices. Instead, the General Court held that it was necessary to distance themselves publicly even further.
   By the sixth ground of appeal, the appellants submit that the General Court infringed Article 47 of the Charter, as interpreted in the light of Article 6 of the Convention, when it found that the length of the administrative procedure (that is to say, the procedure before the European Commission) was not excessive for the purposes of those provisions. In the present case, the administrative procedure took, in total, almost 54 months, including the initial procedure and the subsequent re-adoption procedure. In addition, the two or more years which were necessary for the Commission to readopt the contested decision appear excessive. The grounds stated by the General Court as justification for the length of the re-adoption procedure appear inadequate and contradictory, besides being manifestly inconsistent with the previous case-law of the General Court.
   By the seventh ground of appeal, the appellants complain that there has been an infringement of Article 23 of Regulation No 1/2003 and the principle of equal treatment. In particular, the Commission had subdivided the undertakings into groups in order to determine the basic fine to be applied to each undertaking, attempting — according to the contested decision — to maintain a proportionate relationship between the average market share of each group and the basic fine imposed on the individual undertakings belonging to that group. Although it subsequently acknowledged that the Commission had underestimated the average market share of one of those groups, with the result that the relationship of proportionality which the Commission had meant to maintain had not been maintained, the General Court did not find it necessary to re-establish that relationship.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty (OJ 2004 L 123, p. 18).

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


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 April 2005 in Case T-376/03 Michel Hendrickx v Council of the European Union (Officials — Internal competition — Non-admission to oral tests — Requirement of specific knowledge of languages — Principle of equal treatment — Access to Council documents — Obligation to state grounds)

text:
               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/33

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 5 April 2005
   in Case T-376/03 Michel Hendrickx v Council of the European Union (1)

   (Officials - Internal competition - Non-admission to oral tests - Requirement of specific knowledge of languages - Principle of equal treatment - Access to Council documents - Obligation to state grounds)
   (2005/C 143/62)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-376/03: Michel Hendrickx, official of the Council of the European Union, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by J.-N. Louis, S. Orlandi, A. Coolen and E. Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Council of the European Union (Agents: M. Sims and F. Anton) — application, first, for annulment of the decision of the Selection Board in competition Council/A/270 to award the applicant a disqualifying mark for written test A.3 and not to admit him to the oral tests and, second, for an order requiring the Council to pay token compensation of EUR 1 for non-material damage suffered — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of J.D. Cooke, President, R. Garcia-Valdecasas and I. Labucka, Judges; I. Natsinas, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 5 April 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 21 of 24.1.2004.


title: Case T-389/09: Order of the General Court of 10 January 2011 — Labate v Commission

text:
               5.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/33

         Order of the General Court of 10 January 2011 — Labate v Commission
   (Case T-389/09) (1)

   2011/C 72/51
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.


title: Case C-489/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio by order of that court of 6 July 2000 in the case of Aziende Agricole Corte delle Piacentine and Others v Azienda di Stato per gli Interventi nel Mercato Agricolo (AIMA)

text:
5.5.2001                   EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 134/3
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
                                                                              Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio by order of that
                                                                              court of 6 July 2000 in the case of Aziende Agricole Corte
                             (Fifth Chamber)                                  delle Piacentine and Others v Azienda di Stato per gli
                                                                                Interventi nel Mercato Agricolo (AIMA)
                         of 14 December 2000
                                                                                (Case C-489/00)
in Case C-457/98: Commission of the European Communi-
                     ties v Hellenic Republic (1)                                                     (2001/C 134/05)
                                                                              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
(Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 96/97/EC —
                                                                              European Communities by order of 6 July 2000 of the
Implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men
                                                                              Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio, received at
and women in occupational social security schemes — Failure
                                                                              the Court Registry on 29 December 2000, for a preliminary
                               to transpose)
                                                                              ruling in the case of Aziende Agricole Corte delle Piacentine
                                                                              and Others v Azienda di Stato per gli Interventi nel Mercato
                             (2001/C 134/04)                                  Agricolo (AIMA) on the following questions:
                                                                              (1) May the provisions contained in Articles 1 and 4 of
                                                                                Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 (1) of 28 December
                       (Language of the case: Greek)                               1992 and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation
                                                                                (EEC) No 534/93 (2) of 9 March 1993 be interpreted as
                                                                                meaning that it is possible, in cases of administrative or
                                                                                judicial challenge to the relevant measures, to derogate
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published             from the time-limits prescribed for the allocation of
                     in the European Court Reports)                                quotas and the operation of adjustments and levies?
In Case C-457/98: Commission of the European Communities                      If not,
(Agents: D. Gouloussis and A. Aresu) v Hellenic Republic
(Agents: S. Vodina and N. Dafniou) — application for a
                                                                              (2) Are the provisions contained in Articles 1 and 4 of
declaration that, by failing to bring into force, alternatively
                                                                                Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December
by failing to communicate to the Commission, within the
                                                                                1992 and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation
prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative
                                                                                (EEC) No 534/93 of 9 March 1993 valid, in the light of
provisions necessary to comply fully with Council Directive
                                                                                Article 33 (ex 39) of the Treaty, in so far as they do not
96/97/EC of 20 December 1996 amending Directive
                                                                                provide that derogations may be made from the periods
86/378/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal
                                                                                prescribed by those provisions for the allocation of
treatment for men and women in occupational social security
                                                                                individual reference quantities, for adjustments and levies
schemes (OJ 1997 L 46, p. 20), the Hellenic Republic has
                                                                                in cases of administrative or judicial challenge to those
failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty — the Court
                                                                                provisions?
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola, President of the
Chamber, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur) and L. Sevón, Judges;
D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Admin-                  (3) May Regulations No 3950/92 and 536/93 be interpreted
istrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 Decem-                     as meaning that the application of the system introduced
ber 2000, in which it:                                                             by that legislation excludes the allocation and official
                                                                                notification of individual reference quantities for pro-
                                                                                ducers or does it exclude the official redistribution among
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,            its producers by the Member State of the global quantity
      the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to             which that State is guaranteed?
      comply with Council Directive 96/97/EC of 20 December
      1996 amending Directive 86/378/EEC on the implementation
      of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in                (4) May Articles 3 and 4 of Regulation (EC) No 3950/92 be
      occupational social security schemes, the Hellenic Republic has              interpreted as meaning that no official notification of
      failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;                       individual reference quantities need be given to producers,
                                                                                or does the allocation of an individual reference quantity
                                                                                exclude individual notification to those producers?
2.    Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                              (1) OJ L 405 of 31.12.1992, p. 1.
(1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.                                                     (2) OJ L 57 of 10.3.1993, p. 12.


title: Case T-153/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 27 September 2006 — Ferriere Nord v Commission (Competition — Fine — Breach of Article 81 EC — Powers of the Commission in respect of the enforcement of sanctions — Limitation period — Articles 4 and 6 of Regulation (EEC) No 2988/74 — Admissibility)

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/44

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 27 September 2006 — Ferriere Nord v Commission
   (Case T-153/04) (1)

   (Competition - Fine - Breach of Article 81 EC - Powers of the Commission in respect of the enforcement of sanctions - Limitation period - Articles 4 and 6 of Regulation (EEC) No 2988/74 - Admissibility)
   (2006/C 294/92)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Ferriere Nord SpA (Osoppo, Italy) (represented by: W. Viscardini and G. Donà, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Nijenhuis and A. Whelan, acting as Agents, and by A. Colabianchi, lawyer)
   Re:
   Annulment of the Commission decisions notified by letter of 5 February 2004 and by facsimile of 13 April 2004 concerning the outstanding balance of the fine imposed on the applicant by Commission Decision 89/515/EEC of 2 August 1989 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (IV/31.553 — Welded steel mesh) (OJ 1989 L 260, p. 1)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the Commission decisions notified by letter of 5 February 2004 and by facsimile of 13 April 2004 concerning the outstanding balance of the fine imposed on the applicant by Commission Decision 89/515/EEC of 2 August 1989 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (IV/31.553 — Welded steel mesh);

               2.

               Orders the Commission, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay those of the applicant.

      (1)  OJ C 168, 26.6.2004.


               26.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/18

         Removal from the register of Case C-101/03 (1)

   (2005/C 296/35)

      (Language of the case: Italian)

   By order of 24 June 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-101/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling Tribunale di Milano, Sezione Prima Penale): in criminal proceedings against Alfonso Galeazzo, Marco Banatti.

      (1)  OJ C 101, 26.4.2003.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 15 September 1998 in Case C-231/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova): Edilizia Industriale Siderurgica Srl (Edis) v Ministero delle Finanze (Recovery of sums paid but not due - Procedural time-limits under national law)

text:
24.10.98             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 327/1
                                                                 I
                                                           (Information)
                                             COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                       COURT OF JUSTICE
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  1. The fact that the Court has given a preliminary ruling
                                                                         interpreting a provision of Community law without
                   of 15 September 1998                                  limiting the temporal effects of its judgment does not
                                                                         affect the right of a Member State to impose a time-
in Case C-231/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                         limit under national law within which, on penalty of
the Tribunale di Genova): Edilizia Industriale Siderurgica
                                                                         being barred, proceedings for repayment of charges
           Srl (Edis) v Ministero delle Finanze (1)
                                                                         levied in breach of that provision must be commenced.
(Recovery of sums paid but not due Ð Procedural
               time-limits under national law)
                        (98/C 327/01)                                2. Community law does not prohibit a Member State
                                                                         from resisting actions for repayment of charges levied
                                                                         in breach of Community law by relying on a time-
                                                                         limit under national law of three years, by way of
               (Language of the case: Italian)                           derogation from the ordinary rules governing actions
                                                                         between private individuals for the recovery of sums
                                                                         paid but not due, for which the period allowed is
                                                                         more favourable, provided that that time-limit applies
                                                                         in the same way to actions based on Community law
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be            for repayment of such charges as to those based on
         published in the European Court Reports)                        national law.
In Case C-231/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Tribunale di Genova (District              3. In circumstances such as those of the main
Court, Genoa) (Italy), for a preliminary ruling in the                   proceedings, Community law does not prevent a
proceedings pending before that court between Edilizia                   Member State from resisting actions for repayment of
Industriale Siderurgica Srl (Edis) and Ministero delle                   charges levied in breach of a directive by relying on a
Finanze Ð on the interpretation of Community law                         time-limit under national law which is reckoned from
concerning recovery of sums unduly paid Ð the Court,                     the date of payment of the charges in question, even if,
composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President,                        at that date, the directive concerned had not yet been
H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet and R. Schintgen (Presidents                   properly transposed into national law.
of Chambers), G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,
P. J. G. Kapteyn, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet
(Rapporteur), L. Sevón and K. M. Ioannou, Judges; D.                 (1) OJ C 247, 24.8.1996.
Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; D. Louterman-
Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
given a judgment on 15 September 1998, in which it has
ruled:


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 24 September 1998 in Case T-112/95: Peter Dethlefs and Others v. Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Claims for compensation - Non-contractual liability - Milk - Additional levy - Producers who have entered into non-marketing or conversion undertakings - Compensation - Regulation (EEC) No 2187/93 - Interest)

text:
C 340/16              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   7.11.98
Loesch & Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe, supported by United                 stetten, Frank Schulze and Winfried Haneklaus, Rechtsan-
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agents:              wälte, Münster, with an address for service in
Lindsey Nicoll, Kenneth Parker and Rhodri Thompson)                 Luxembourg at the Chambers of Dupong & Dupong, 4Ð
against Commission of the European Communities                      6 Rue de la Boucherie, against Council of the European
(Agents: initially Jean-Paul Keppenne and Paul Nemitz,              Union (Agent: Arthur Brautigam) and Commission of the
subsequently Paul Nemitz and Nicholas Khan), supported              European Communities (Agents: Dierk Booû, Hans-Jürgen
by Italian Republic (Agents: Umberto Leanza and                     Rabe and Georg M. Berrisch) Ð application, under
Maurizio Fiorilli), and by ENI SpA, established in Rome,            Articles 178 and 215, second paragraph, of the EC Treaty,
and EniChem SpA, established in Milan (Italy),                      for an order directing the defendants to pay interest at the
represented by Mario Siragusa, of the Rome Bar, and                 rate of 8 % per annum on the amount of compensation
Giuseppe Scassellati-Sforzolini, of the Bologna Bar, with           paid to the applicants pursuant to Council Regulation
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of             (EEC) No 2187/93 of 22 July 1993 providing for an offer
Elvinger & Hoss, 15 Côte d'Eich Ð application for                   of compensation to certain producers of milk and milk
annulment of the Commission decision of 27 July 1994                products temporarily prevented from carrying on their
regarding aid which Italy has decided to grant to EniChem           trade (OJ L 196 of 5.8.1993, p. 6), together with default
SpA (OJ C 330 of 26.11.1994, p. 7) Ð the Court of First             interest on the amounts thus calculated Ð the Court of
Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition),                    First Instance (First Chamber), composed of: B.
composed of: C. W. Bellamy, President, C. P. BrieÈt, R.             Vesterdorf, President, R. M. Moura Ramos and P.
García-Valdecasas, A. Kalogeropoulos and A. Potocki,                Mengozzi, Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for
Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the                the Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 September
Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 September 1998, in            1998, in which it:
which it:
1. annuls the Commission's decision of 27 July 1994
    regarding aid which Italy has decided to grant to               1. orders the defendants to pay the applicants Günter
    EniChem SpA in so far as it closes the examination                   Backhaus, Uwe Lorentz and Manfred Mittwede in
    under Article 93(3) of the Treaty of the capital                     respect of the period between 20 April and 28 June
    injection of LIT 3 000 billion to which it refers;                   1994 interest at the rate of 8 % per annum on the
                                                                         compensation paid to them under Council Regulation
                                                                         (EEC) No 2187/93 of 22 July 1993 providing for an
2. dismisses the       remainder     of the  application   as            offer of compensation to certain producers of milk and
    inadmissible;                                                        milk products temporarily prevented from carrying on
                                                                         their trade;
3. orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to
    pay two-thirds of the applicant's costs, and orders the
    applicant to bear one-third of its own costs;
                                                                    2. orders the defendants to pay the applicant Paul
4. orders the United Kingdom, the Italian Republic, ENI                  Gövert in respect of the period between 9 May and
    SpA and EniChem SpA to bear their own costs.                         3 August 1994 interest at the rate of 8 % per annum
                                                                         on the compensation paid to him under that
                                                                         regulation;
(1) OJ C 87 of 8.4.1995.
                                                                    3. orders the defendants to pay to all the other applicants
                                                                         in respect of the period between 20 April and 3 August
                                                                         1994 interest at the rate of 8 % per annum on the
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                compensation paid to them under that regulation;
                    of 24 September 1998
in Case T-112/95: Peter Dethlefs and Others v. Council of
the European Union and Commission of the European
                        Communities (1)                             4. orders interest at the rate of 6 % per annum to be paid
                                                                         on those amounts with effect from the date of this
(Claims for compensation Ð Non-contractual liability Ð                   judgment;
Milk Ð Additional levy Ð Producers who have entered
into non-marketing or conversion undertakings Ð
Compensation Ð Regulation (EEC) No 2187/93 Ð
                            Interest)                               5. orders each of the parties to bear his own costs.
                         (98/C 340/28)
                                                                    (1) OJ C 208 of 12.8.1995.
               (Language of the case: German)
In Case T-112/95: Peter Dethlefs and Others, represented
by Bernd Meisterernst, Mechthild Düsing, Dietrich Man-


title: Case F-21/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 26 June 2013 — Achab v EESC (Civil Service — Officials — Remuneration — Expatriation allowance — Condition laid down in Article 4(1)(a) and (b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Recovery of sums unduly paid)

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/46

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 26 June 2013 — Achab v EESC
   (Case F-21/12) (1)

   (Civil Service - Officials - Remuneration - Expatriation allowance - Condition laid down in Article 4(1)(a) and (b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Recovery of sums unduly paid)
   2013/C 252/79
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Mohammed Achab (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: N. Lhoest, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) (represented by: M. Arsène and G. Boudot, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision withdrawing the award of expatriation allowance to the applicant and seeking retroactively to recover that allowance.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the European Economic and Social Committee of 9 June 2011 in so far as it orders the recovery of the expatriation allowance paid to Mr Achab from 1 July 2010;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the European Economic and Social Committee to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Mr Achab;

               4.

               Orders Mr Achab to bear half of his own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 133, 5.5.2012, p. 30.


title: Case C-55/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca do Porto (Portugal) lodged on 13 February 2008 — Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa v Liga Portuguesa de Fuetbol Profissional (CA/LPFP), Baw International Ltd e Betandwin.Com Interactive Entertainment

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca do Porto (Portugal) lodged on 13 February 2008 — Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa v Liga Portuguesa de Fuetbol Profissional (CA/LPFP), Baw International Ltd e Betandwin.Com Interactive Entertainment
   (Case C-55/08)
   (2008/C 92/35)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Referring court
   Tribunal Judicial da Comarca do Porto (Portugal)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa

      Defendants: Liga Portuguesa de Fuetbol Profissional (CA/LPFP), Baw International Ltd and Betandwin.Com Interactive Entertainment
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is the fact that the State reserves to itself the ‘right to run games of luck or chance’ (Article 9 of DL 422/89 of 2 December, amended by DL 10/95 of 19 January 1995 and by DL 40/2005 of 17 February 2005) and the right to ‘organise pool betting systems’ (Article 1 of DL 84/85 of 17 December 1985, amended by DL 317/2002) compatible with the rules of Community law … laying down the principles of the freedom to provide services, free competition and prohibition of State monopolies?

               2.

               What criteria should guide interpretation of national legislation restricting those principles, for the purposes of determining whether such restriction is admissible in light of the rules of Community law …?

               3.

               Is the prohibition of advertising games of luck and chance when forming the substantive content of the message, having regard to the exception relating to the advertising of games organised by the Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa, compatible with the rules of Community law … laying down the principles of the freedom to provide services, free competition and prohibition of State monopolies?


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 July 2005 in Case C-147/03: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 12 EC, 149 EC and 150 EC — Conditions of access to university education — Discrimination)

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/5

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 7 July 2005
   in Case C-147/03: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Articles 12 EC, 149 EC and 150 EC - Conditions of access to university education - Discrimination)
   (2005/C 217/10)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-147/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: W. Bogensberger and D. Martin), supported by Republic of Finland, (Agents: A. Guimaraes-Purokoski and T. Pynnä) v Republic of Austria (Agents: H. Dossi and E. Riedl, assisted by C. Ruhs and H. Kasparovsky) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 31 March 2003 — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of the Fifth Chamber acting for the President of the Second Chamber, C. Gulmann, J. Makarczyk (Rapporteur), P. Kūris and J. Klučka, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 7 July 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to take the necessary measures to ensure that holders of secondary education diplomas awarded in other Member States can gain access to higher and university education organised by it under the same conditions as holders of secondary education diplomas awarded in Austria, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 12 EC, 149 EC and 150 EC;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 112 of 10.5.2003.


title: Case C-107/15 P: Appeal brought on 4 March 2015 by Petros Khatzithoma and Elenitsa Khatzithoma against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 16 October 2014 in Case T-329/13 Petros Khatzithoma and Elenitsa Khatzithoma v Commission and European Central Bank

text:
               1.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/4

         Appeal brought on 4 March 2015 by Petros Khatzithoma and Elenitsa Khatzithoma against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 16 October 2014 in Case T-329/13 Petros Khatzithoma and Elenitsa Khatzithoma v Commission and European Central Bank

   (Case C-107/15 P)
   (2015/C 178/04)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Appellants: Petros Khatzithoma and Elenitsa Khatzithoma (represented by: E. Efstathiou, K. Efstathiou and K. Liasidou, dikigori)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission and European Central Bank

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the order under appeal;

               —

               set aside the finding of the General Court that the objection of inadmissibility should be upheld and in particular the finding that ‘statements of the Eurogroup cannot be considered to be acts intended to produce legal effects vis-à-vis third parties’ and consequently vis-à-vis the appellants, and that by the contested statement the Eurogroup ‘gave an account in very general terms of certain measures which were agreed at a political level with the Republic of Cyprus’;

               —

               set aside the order under appeal which attributed the impairment of bank deposits to the Republic of Cyprus and failed to attribute any conduct or act or decision whatsoever either to the Eurogroup or to the defendants or to the defendants within the Eurogroup;

               —

               set aside the order that the appellants should pay the costs.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The appellants rely on four grounds in support of the appeal. Specifically:

               1.

               The order under appeal is vitiated by a defective statement of reasons and was made on the basis of a misinterpretation of the facts and the law in relation to the identity of the body which actually and in reality made the decision on the ‘bail in’ impairment of bank deposits.

               2.

               The order under appeal was made contrary to general principles of law in that the General Court misinterpreted the fact that, irrespective of the shape or form taken by the Eurogroup’s contested decision, that decision was in this case an act against which an appeal could be brought.

               3.

               The order under appeal is in error in that the General Court for the making of the order failed to examine the legal and actual association of the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the Eurogroup and also failed to examine the fact that, on the basis of the principle of legal causation and the true author test, the acts of the Eurogroup constituted acts of the European Central Bank and the European Commission, which ought to have acted in a way compatible with the Treaty and the Protocols of the European Union and on the basis of secondary and derivative law
               In consequence, the General Court failed to examine the substance of the appellants’ arguments and case, and thus erred in dismissing the action for annulment.

               4.

               In the event that this appeal is upheld, the appellants should not be ordered to pay the costs of this appeal or of the proceedings at first instance.