title: Case T-448/07: Action brought on 7 December 2007 — YKK and Others v Commission

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/44

         Action brought on 7 December 2007 — YKK and Others v Commission
   (Case T-448/07)
   (2008/C 51/83)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: YKK Corp. (Tokyo, Japan), YKK Holding Europe BV (Sneek, Netherlands), YKK Stocko Fasteners GmbH (Wuppertal, Germany) (represented by: H. Kaneko and C. Vennemann, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested decision in so far as it concerns each of the applicants;

               —

               as a consequence, cancel the fines imposed on each of the applicants;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Article 2 of the contested decision in so far as it concerns each of the applicants, or, at least cancel or reduce the fines imposed on each of the applicants;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants seek the annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 4257 final of 19 September 2007 in Case COMP/E-1/39.168 — PO/Hard Haberdashery: Fasteners, by which the Commission found that the applicants, together with other undertakings, had infringed Article 81 EC by:

               —

               agreeing on coordinated price increases and exchanging confidential information on prices and implementation of price increases within the ‘Baseler, Wuppertaler and Amsterdamer cooperation’;

               —

               fixing prices, monitoring price increases and allocating customers in a bilateral cooperation with Prym Fashion; and

               —

               exchanging price information, discussing prices and agreeing on a methodology to fix minimum prices in a tripartite cooperation with Coats and Prym.

         In support of their application, the applicants submit that the 1,25 multiplier for deterrence imposed on them breaches the principle of proportionality.
   Concerning the ‘Baseler, Wuppertaler and Amsterdamer cooperation’, the applicants allege that, with respect to YKK Stocko Fasteners, the Commission misapplied Article 23(2) of Regulation 1/2003 (1), according to which the fine to be imposed on an undertaking shall not exceed 10 % of its total turnover in the preceding business year. Furthermore, the increase by 1,25 for deterrence is, according to the applicants, not justified for the period prior to the acquisition of YKK Stocko Fasteners by YKK Holding Europe.
   Concerning the bilateral cooperation between Prym Fashion and the applicants YKK Stocko Fasteners and YKK Corp., the applicants contend that the Commission was incorrect to assume that the cooperation was of a worldwide dimension.
   Concerning the tripartite cooperation between Coats, Prym and the applicant YKK Holding Europe, the applicants consider:

               —

               that the Commission failed to prove to the requisite standard that the discussions about harmonising prices at the five zip fastener meetings in 1998 and 1999 constitute an agreement or concerted practice in violation of Article 81 EC;

               —

               that if the discussions at the five zip fastener meetings in 1998 and 1999 were to constitute an infringement of Article 81 EC, the applicants should have been granted a reduction of fines for their cooperation with the Commission under the Commission's Leniency Program;

               —

               that these discussions are not sufficient to be categorised as a ‘very serious’ infringement;

               —

               that the fine imposed by the Commission is disproportionate to the nature of any possible infringement; and

               —

               that the Commission failed to consider the impact of such an infringement on the EC market.

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


title: Case T-410/08 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 14 November 2008 — GEMA v Commission (Application for interim measures — Commission decision ordering the cessation of a concerted practice in relation to the collective management of copyright — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency)

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/36

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 14 November 2008 — GEMA v Commission
   (Case T-410/08 R)
   (Application for interim measures - Commission decision ordering the cessation of a concerted practice in relation to the collective management of copyright - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency)
   (2009/C 32/69)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Gesellschaft für musikalische Aufführungs- und mechanische Vervielfältigungsrechte (GEMA) (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: R. Bechtold and I. Brinker, lawyers, assisted by Professor J. Schwarze)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, O. Weber and A. Antoniadis, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for suspension of operation of the combined provisions of Articles 3 and 4(2) and (3) of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC) in so far as they concern the applicant.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 24 September 1996 in Case T-485/93: Société Louis Dreyfus et Cie v. Commission of the European Communities (Emergency assistance given by the Community to the States of the former Soviet Union - Invitation to tender - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Action for damages - Admissibility)

text:
9 . 11 . 96           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 3 36/25
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of: K. Lenaerts, President,
                    of 19 September 1996                               and P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
                                                                       has given a judgment on 19 September 1996 , in which
     in Case T-158/94 : François Brunagel v. European                  it :
                           Parliament ( 1 )
(Officials — Recruitment procedure — Application of                    1 . orders the Commission to pay the applicant the sum of
Article 29 (2) of the Staff Regulations — Assessment of                     Bfrs 1 0 000 by way of damages for non-material
candidates ' vocational aptitude — Misuse of powers —                       damage;
         Non-discrimination — Statement of reasons)
                          ( 96/C 336/51 )                              2 . dismisses the remainder of the application;
                                                                       3 . orders the Commission to pay the costs.
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                       (') OJ No C 392 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .
In Case T-158/94 : Francois Brunagel , an official of the
European Parliament, residing in Brussels, represented by
Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi , of the Brussels Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 1 Rue Glesener, v. European
Parliament ( Agents : Manfred Peter and Alex Bonn ) —                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
application for annulment of the decision of the European                                  of 24 September 1996
Parliament of 1 9 July 1993 refusing to appoint the applicant
to the post of Head of Protocol and, consequently, for                 in Case T-485/93 : Société Louis Dreyfus et Cie v.
annulment of the decision appointing Mr B. to that post —                     Commission of the European Communities ( 1 )
the Court of First Instance ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of:           (Emergency assistance given by the Community to the States
K. Lenaerts, President, and P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke,                  of the former Soviet Union — Invitation to tender — Action
Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the                    for annulment — Admissibility — Action for damages —
Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 September 1996 , in                                        Admissibility)
which it :
                                                                                ( 96/C 336/53 )
1 . dismisses the action ;
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
2 . orders the Parliament to pay the costs.
                                                                       In Case T-485/93 : Societe Louis Dreyfus et Cie , established
(') OJ No C 146 , 28 . 5 . 1994 .                                      in Paris , represented by Robert Saint-Esteben , of the Paris
                                                                       Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                       Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue, v. Commission of
                                                                       the European Communities ( Agents : Marie-Jose Jonczy,
                                                                       Nicholas Khan and, at the hearing, Berend Jan Drijber ) —
                                                                       application, first, for annulment of the decision of the
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                Commission of 1 April 1993 addressed to the
                                                                       Vnesheconombank and , second, for damages for the loss
                    of 19 September 1996                               allegedly suffered by the applicant — the Court of First
in Case T-3 86/94 : Alain-Pierre Allo v. Commission of the             Instance ( Third Chamber ), composed of: C. P. Briët,
                 European Communities ( 1 )                            President, and B. Vesterdorf and A. Potocki , Judges; J.
(Officials — 'Second stream ' procedure for promotion to               Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
Grade A3 — Action for annulment — Personal file —                      given a judgment on 24 September 1996 , in which it :
      Absence of staff reports — Action for damages)
                                                                       1 . dismisses     the     application     for annulment    as
                          ( 96/C 336/52 )                                   inadmissible;
               (Language of the case: French)                          2 . dismisses the objection of inadmissibility inasmuch as it
                                                                            concerns the claims for compensation for the material
In Case T-386/94 : Alain-Pierre Allo, an official of the                    and non-material damage allegedly suffered by the
Commission of the European Communities, residing in                         applicant;
Brussels, represented by Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers              3 . orders the procedure relating to those claims for
of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim, v. Commission                   compensation to be continued in relation to the
                                                                            substance :
of the European Communities ( Agents : Ana Maria Alves
Vieira and Denis Waelbroeck ) — application, first, for
                                                                       4.   reserves the costs .
annulment of the decision of the Commission of 30 May
1994 listing the officials eligible for promotion to grade A 3
under the so-called ' second stream' procedure and , second,           (') OJ No C 198 , 22 . 7 . 1993 .
for damages for the material and non-material damage
suffered by the applicant — the Court of First Instance


title: Case C-416/06: Action brought on 11 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/27

         Action brought on 11 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-416/06)
   (2006/C 326/54)
   Language of the case: Polish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Shotter and K. Mojzesowicz, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by not ensuring actual availability of at least one comprehensive directory and one comprehensive directory enquiry service in accordance with the requirements set out in Article 5(1) and (2) and Article 25(1) and (3) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (1), the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time-limit for transposition of Directive 2002/22 expired on 30 June 2004.

      (1)  OJ No L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 51.


title: Case T-509/10: Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2012 — Manufacturing Support & Procurement Kala Naft v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing assets — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Power of the Council — Misuse of power — Entry into force — Non-retroactivity — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Error of law — Concept of support for nuclear proliferation — Error of assessment)

text:
               9.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2012 — Manufacturing Support & Procurement Kala Naft v Council
   (Case T-509/10) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing assets - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Power of the Council - Misuse of power - Entry into force - Non-retroactivity - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Error of law - Concept of support for nuclear proliferation - Error of assessment)
   2012/C 165/31
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Manufacturing Support & Procurement Kala Naft Co., Tehran (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: F. Esclatine and S. Perrotet, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Konstantinidis and É. Cujo, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39), Council implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 of 26 July 2010 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 25), Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 81) and Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that it does not have jurisdiction to give a ruling on the second part of the first plea;

               2.

               Annuls, as far as they concern Manufacturing Support & Procurement Kala Naft Co. Tehran:

                           —

                           Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP

                           —

                           Council implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 of 26 July 2010 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran

                           —

                           Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP

                           —

                           Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007

               3.

               Declares that the effects of Decision 2010/413, as amended by Decision 2010/644, are to be maintained as far as concerns Manufacturing Support & Procurement Kala Naft Co. Tehran from its entry into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union until the annulment of regulation No 961/2010 takes effect.

               4.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to by those incurred by Manufacturing Support & Procurement Kala Naft Co. Tehran.

               5.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.


title: Case C-174/13 P: Appeal brought on 9 April 2013 by Axitea SpA, formerly La Vigile San Marco SpA, against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 22 January 2013 in Case T-262/00 La Vigile San Marco SpA v European Commission

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/4

         Appeal brought on 9 April 2013 by Axitea SpA, formerly La Vigile San Marco SpA, against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 22 January 2013 in Case T-262/00 La Vigile San Marco SpA v European Commission
   (Case C-174/13 P)
   2013/C 207/05
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Axitea SpA, formerly La Vigile San Marco SpA (represented by: A. Vianello, A. Bortoluzzi and A. Veronese, avvocati)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Italian Republic, European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside and/or vary the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered in Case T-262/00, and order the Commission to pay the costs

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its appeal, the appellant alleges errors of law in the application of the principles outlined by the Court of Justice in its judgment in Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’ and Others v Commission, regarding (i) the duty to state the reasons for decisions of the Commission relating to State aid and (ii) the allocation of the burden of proof concerning the conditions laid down in Article 107(1) TFEU.
   In the order that is the subject of the present appeal, the General Court did not comply with the judgment delivered by the Court of Justice on 9 June 2011 in Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’, in so far as that judgment states that a decision of the Commission ‘must contain in itself all the matters essential for its implementation by the national authorities’. However, even though the decision at issue in the present case lacked the matters essential for its implementation by the national authorities, the General Court failed to find any deficiency in the method used by the Commission in the contested decision, and consequently erred in law.
   On the basis of the principles outlined by the Court in its judgment in Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’, when aid is being recovered, it is the Member State — and not, therefore, the individual beneficiary — which is required to show, in each individual case, that the conditions laid down in Article 107(1) TFEU are met. In the present case, however, in the contested decision the Commission failed to clarify the ‘modalities’ of any such verification; consequently, since it did not have available to it, at the time when the aid was to be recovered, the information necessary to show that the advantages granted constituted, in the hands of the beneficiaries, State aid, the Italian Republic — by Law No 228 of 24 December 2012 (Article 1, paragraph 351 et seq.) — decided to reverse the burden of proof, in breach of Community case-law. According to the Italian legislature, in particular, it is not for the State but for the individual beneficiaries of aid granted in the form of relief to prove that the advantages in question do not distort competition or affect trade between Member States. In the absence of any such proof, there is a presumption that the advantage granted was likely to distort trade and affect trade between Member States. That presumption is clearly contrary to the principles outlined by the Court in Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’.


C 352/30              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    4.12.1999
       Removal from the register of Case C-42/98 (1)                         Removal from the register of Case C-323/98 (1)
                         (1999/C 352/50)                                                     (1999/C 352/52)
By order of 7 July 1999 the President of the Court of Justice of
the European Communities has ordered the removal from the             By order of 14 September 1999 the President of the Court of
register of Case-42/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling            Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Johann Seemeier and Jörg            from the register of Case C-323/98 (reference for a preliminary
Schreiber v Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Salz-            ruling from Tribunale civile e penale, Verona): Idropi SpA v
burg and Jörg Schreiber v Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat für           MTMD — Lydis Megatherm Magneta SA.
Kärnten.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 327 of 24.10.1998.
(1) OJ C 137 of 2.5.1998.
       Removal from the register of Case C-438/97 (1)
                         (1999/C 352/51)                                     Removal from the register of Case C-131/99 (1)
By order of 8 July 1999 the President of the Court of Justice of                             (1999/C 352/53)
the European Communities has ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-438/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling
from Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Holger Warnecke e.a. v                  By order of 19 July 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat de la province de Salzburg.             of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                      the register of Case C-131/99: Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities v Portuguese Republic.
(1) OJ C 72 of 7.3.1998.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.


title: Case C-228/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d'Appel de Pau (First Criminal Chamber) by judgment of that court of 15 May 2001, in the criminal proceedings against Jacques Bourrasse — Party claiming civil damages: Union Régionale Syndicale des Petits et Moyens Transporteurs du Sud Ouest (UNOSTRA Aquitaine); Intervener: Inspection du Travail des Transports

text:
11.8.2001               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 227/13
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d’Appel                      preliminary ruling in the case of Intervention Board for
de Pau (First Criminal Chamber) by judgment of that                         Agricultural Produce against Penycoed Farming Partnership,
court of 15 May 2001, in the criminal proceedings against                   on the following questions:
Jacques Bourrasse — Party claiming civil damages: Union
Régionale Syndicale des Petits et Moyens Transporteurs                      1.    Do Articles 1 and/or 2 of Council Regulation 3950/92 (1)
du Sud Ouest (UNOSTRA Aquitaine); Intervener: Inspec-                             permit the competent body in a Member State to take
                  tion du Travail des Transports                                  legal action directly against a producer to recover levy
                                                                                due from that producer (otherwise than pursuant to
                                                                                Article 2 (3) in respect of direct sales)?
                          (Case C-228/01)
                                                                            2.    If so, in what circumstances may such action be taken?
                          (2001/C 227/21)
                                                                            3.    In particular, may such action be taken where the
                                                                                purchaser to whom milk was delivered was (a) not
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                            approved pursuant to Article 7 of Commission Regu-
European Communities by judgment of the Cour d’Appel de                           lation 536/93 (2) and/or (b) has not complied with any of
Pau (First Criminal Chamber) of 15 May 2001, received at the                      its obligations under Article 7 of that Regulation
Court Registry on 11 June 2001, for a preliminary ruling in                       and/or (c) has not recovered or sought to recover levy
the criminal proceedings against Jacques Bourrasse — Party                        from the producers concerned?
claiming civil damages: Union Régionale Syndicale des Petits
et Moyens Transporteurs du Sud Ouest (UNOSTRA Aquitaine);
Intervener: Inspection du Travail des Transports, on the                    (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92, of 28 December 1992,
following questions:                                                            establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk products
                                                                                sector (OJ L 405, 31.12.1992, p. 1).
1.    Can ‘the hiring of a vehicle without a driver’ as envisaged           (2) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 536/93 of 9 March 1993 laying
      by Article 2 of Council Directive 84/647/EEC (1) be                       down detailed rules on the application of the additional levy on
      interpreted as permitting the lessor, a road haulage                      milk and milk products (OJ L 57, 10.03.1993, p. 12).
      company governed by French law:
      —     to obtain the carriage authorisations necessary
            within French territory on behalf of the lessee, a
            road haulage company governed by Portuguese law
      —     to manage on behalf of the lessee, a road haulage
            company governed by Portuguese law, the tacho-
            graph discs of the drivers employed by that com-
            pany?                                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Brescia Regional
                                                                            Court — Third Civil Chamber — by order of that court
2.    Did the hired vehicles have to be registered in Portugal?             of 8 May 2001 in case of El.Da. s.r.l. against Ministero
                                                                                delle Finanze
(1) Council Directive 84/647/EEC of 19 december 1984 on the use
    of vehicles hired without drivers for the carriage of goods by road                              (Case C-231/01)
    (OJ L 335 of 22.12.1984 p. 72).
                                                                                (2001/C 227/23)
                                                                            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                            European Communities by order of the Brescia Regional Court
                                                                            — Third Civil Chamber — of 8 May 2001 received at the
                                                                            Court Registry on 12 June 2001, for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                            the case of El.Da. s.r.l. against Ministero delle Finanze on the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal                   following question:
(England and Wales) (Civil Division), by order of that
court of 31 May 2001, in the case of Intervention                           (1) Is Article 11(1) of Italian Law No 448 of 23 December
Board for Agricultural Produce against Penycoed Farming                           1998 (G.U.R.I. No 302 of 29 December 1998, ordinary
                            Partnership                                           supplement) compatible with Community law, in particu-
                                                                                lar with Articles 10 and 12 of Council Directive
                          (Case C-230/01)                                         69/335/EEC (1) of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes
                                                                                on the raising of capital, inasmuch as it provides that the
                                                                                administrative charge is payable at a flat annual rate for
                          (2001/C 227/22)                                         registration of other company documents for each of the
                                                                                years from 1985 to 1992, equal to the sum of the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                            sum of ITL 750 000 for public limited companies and
European Communities by an order of the Court of Appeal                           partnerships limited by shares and ITL 400 000 for
(England and Wales) (Civil Division) of 31 May 2001, which                        private limited companies and ITL 90 000 for other
was received at the Court Registry on 12 June 2001, for a                         companies?


title: Case C-588/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the arbeidshof te Antwerpen (Belgium)) — Lyreco Belgium NV v Sophie Rogiers (Social policy — Directive 96/34/EC — Framework agreement on parental leave — Clauses 1 and 2.4 — Part-time parental leave — Dismissal of a worker without compelling or sufficient reason — Fixed-sum protective award on account of the taking of parental leave — Method of calculating the amount of award)

text:
               14.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/11

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the arbeidshof te Antwerpen (Belgium)) — Lyreco Belgium NV v Sophie Rogiers
   (Case C-588/12) (1)

   ((Social policy - Directive 96/34/EC - Framework agreement on parental leave - Clauses 1 and 2.4 - Part-time parental leave - Dismissal of a worker without compelling or sufficient reason - Fixed-sum protective award on account of the taking of parental leave - Method of calculating the amount of award))
   2014/C 112/12
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Arbeidshof te Antwerpen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Lyreco Belgium NV

      Defendant: Sophie Rogiers

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Arbeidshof te Antwerpen — Belgium — Interpretation of clauses 1 and 2.4, of the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and ETUC, contained in the Annex to Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 (OJ 1996 L 145, p. 4) — Part-time parental leave — Reduction of benefits — Termination of a worker’s contract before the end of the period of parental leave without compelling reason — Method of calculating the amount of redundancy compensation.

      Operative part of the judgment

   On a proper construction of clause 2.4 of the framework agreement on parental leave concluded on 14 December 1995, which is set out in the annex to Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, as amended by Council Directive 97/75/EC of 15 December 1997 read in the light both of the objectives of that Framework Agreement and of clause 2.6 thereof, it is contrary to that provision for the fixed-sum protective award payable to a worker on part-time parental leave, where the employer unilaterally and without compelling or sufficient reason terminates that worker’s full-time contract of indefinite duration, to be determined on the basis of the reduced salary earned by that worker at the date of the dismissal.

      (1)  OJ C 79, 16.3.2013.


title: Case T-131/17 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 21 July 2017 — Argus Security Projects v EEAS (Interim measures — EEAS — Recovery by offsetting — Application for interim measures — Financial loss — Duty of care — No urgency)

text:
               4.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 293/35

         Order of the President of the General Court of 21 July 2017 — Argus Security Projects v EEAS
   (Case T-131/17 R)
   ((Interim measures - EEAS - Recovery by offsetting - Application for interim measures - Financial loss - Duty of care - No urgency))
   (2017/C 293/43)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Argus Security Projects Ltd (Limassol, Cyprus) (represented by: T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

      Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS) (represented by: S. Marquardt, acting as Agent, and by B. Allemeersch, W. De Meester and G. Scraeyen, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application on the basis of Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking the grant of interim measures ordering, first, the suspension of operation of the Commission’s offsetting decisions, acting on behalf of the accounting officer of the EEAS, of the respective amounts of EUR 100 600, EUR 41 522 and EUR 52 600 (decisions communicated on 15 March 2017), EUR 58 924 (decision communicated on 7 April 2017) and EUR 41 422 (decision communicated on 19 April 2017) and, secondly, an injunction against EEAS adopting any further offsetting decision against the applicant pending delivery of a final judgment concerning the dispute related to the performance of the framework contract 2008/14/SEC/RELEX/K8, pending before the Court of First Instance of Brussels (Belgium).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case C-207/05: Action brought on 11 May 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
               23.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/30

         Action brought on 11 May 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
   (Case C-207/05)
   (2005/C 182/53)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 11 May 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by V. Di Bucci and L. Pignataro, acting as Agents.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by not adopting within the prescribed time-limits all measures necessary to recover from the beneficiaries the aid adjudged to be unlawful and incompatible with the common market by Commission Decision 2003/193/EC (1) of 5 June 2002 on State aid granted by Italy in the form of tax exemptions and subsidised loans to public utilities with a majority public capital holding, C 27/99 (ex NN 69/98), or in any event by not informing the Commission of those provisions, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3 and 4 of that decision and the EC Treaty;

               2.

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The decision obliges Italy to take all measures necessary to recover from the beneficiaries the aid granted and unlawfully made available to the beneficiaries under the schemes examined in that decision, and to inform the Commission within two months of notification of the measures taken to comply with it.
   Italy has not taken the necessary measures and in any event has not informed the Commission or submitted that it is absolutely impossible to enforce the decision. Recent legislation has allowed the subsequent extension of the time-limits for recovery which do not in any case result in the immediate enforcement of the decision. Moreover, the Commission has always given Italy its full cooperation.

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 77, p. 21 of 24.03.2003.


title: Case T-247/06 P: Appeal brought on 7 September 2006 by Carlos Sanchez Ferriz against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 28 June 2006 in Case F-19/05 Sanchez Ferriz v Commission

text:
               28.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/27

         Appeal brought on 7 September 2006 by Carlos Sanchez Ferriz against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 28 June 2006 in Case F-19/05 Sanchez Ferriz v Commission
   (Case T-247/06 P)
   (2006/C 261/51)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Carlos Sanchez Ferriz (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by F. Frabetti, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 28 June 2006 in Case F-19/05;

               —

               give a ruling on costs, fees and disbursements and order the Commission to pay them.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In his appeal, the appellant claims that the Tribunal committed procedural irregularities when it considered the plea alleging infringement of the principle of non-discrimination in that it failed to examine the substance of the case of alleged discrimination in the application of the rule establishing a weighting of the points in a career development report, as raised by the appellant in his action.


title: Case T-394/05: Action brought on  17 October 2005  — Valero Jordana v Commission

text:
               14.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 10/27

         Action brought on 17 October 2005 — Valero Jordana v Commission
   (Case T-394/05)
   (2006/C 10/54)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Gregorio Valero Jordana (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Merola and I. van Schendel, lawyers)

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

               —

               annul:

                           (a)

                           the decision of the Director General of the Legal Service not to award him, for the 2004 promotion exercise, priority points under Article 5(2)(a) of the General Implementing Provisions of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, as is apparent from the Sysper 2 computerised system, confirmed by the Appointing Authority's decision of 16 November 2004 rejecting the applicant's appeal lodged on 4 October 2004.

                           (b)

                           the award, in the 2004 promotion exercise, of points awarded on appeal for reasons other than a finding of merit in that period, priority points for work in the interest of the institution and transitional priority points;

                           (c)

                           as regards the points in (b), the merit list of officials in Grade A5 for promotion exercise 2004, published in Administrative Notices No 114-2004 of 20 September 2004 and No 119-2004 of 27 September 2004, and the list of officials promoted to Grade A4 under the 2004 promotion exercise, published in Administrative Notice No 130-2004 of 30 November 2004; and the decision not to enter the applicant on those lists;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of his action, the applicant advances similar pleas to those advanced in Case T-385/04 (1).

      (1)  OJ C 284, 20.11.2004, p. 27.


title: Case C-7/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division, by order of that court dated 18 December 2002, in the case of Société de produits Nestlé SA against Unilever plc

text:
26.4.2003               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                             C 101/15
       b)   Under the Community law principle of pro-                            of a particular trader is that sufficient of itself to prove
            portionality, is the discretion to be exercised in                   that the shape has acquired a distinctive character within
            assessing the impact of overlaying waste that has                    the meaning of Art 3(3) of the Directive?
            not been treated prior to landfill with waste treated
            by thermal or mechanical and biological processes             3.     If that is insufficient, must it also be proved that the shape
            prior to landfill wide or narrow? Does the principle                 is used and relied upon by the relevant public as a
            of proportionality permit hazards caused by waste                    guarantee of trade origin?
            treated prior to landfill by mechanical processes
            alone to be offset by other safeguards?                       4.     If the preponderance of the public recognise a shape
                                                                                mark as the product of one trader but a significant
                                                                                minority also regard other shapes in use by other traders
( 1) OJ L 182 of 16.7.1999, p. 1 (Council Directive 1999/31/EC of                as the shape applied for, has the shape mark acquired a
     26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste).                                    ‘distinctive character’ within the meaning of Art 3(3) of
                                                                                the Directive?
                                                                          (1 ) First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to
                                                                               approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade
                                                                               marks (OJ L 40 11.2.1989, p. 1).
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division, by order
of that court dated 18 December 2002, in the case of
      Société de produits Nestlé SA against Unilever plc
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesge-
                            (Case C-7/03)                                 richt Naumburg by order of that Court of 8 January 2003
                                                                          in the procurement review proceedings, Parties to the
                          (2003/C 101/26)                                 proceedings being 1. The City of Halle, 2. RPL Recy-
                                                                          clingpark Lochau GmbH and 3. The Thermische
                                                                          Restabfall- und Energieverwertungsanlage TREA Leuna
                                                                                consortium
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the High Court of                                                  (Case C-26/03)
Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division, dated 18 Decem-
ber 2002, which was received at the Court Registry on
                                                                                (2003/C 101/27)
9 January 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Société
de produits Nestlé SA and Unilever plc on the following
questions:
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
1.     When considering signs which consist of the shape of               European Communities by order of the Oberlandesgericht
       goods, what is meant by ‘the nature of the goods                   Naumburg (Higher Regional Court, Naumburg) of 8 January
       themselves’ in Art 3(1)(e) of the Trade Marks Directive            2003, received at the Court Registry on 23 January 2003, for
       89/104 ( 1)? and in particular does that nature arise from:        a preliminary ruling in the procurement review proceedings,
                                                                          Parties to the proceedings being 1. The City of Halle, 2. RPL
       (a)  the specification of goods for which the trade mark           Recyclingpark Lochau GmbH and 3. The Thermische
            is registered (or applied for);                               Restabfall- und Energieverwertungsanlage TREA Leuna consor-
                                                                          tium, on the following questions:
       (b) the kind of goods for which the mark is used
            regarded as articles of commerce;                             I.     1.    Does the first sentence of Article 1(1) of Council
                                                                                Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the
                                                                                coordination of the laws, regulations and adminis-
       (c)  only the inherent nature of non-man made articles;
                                                                                trative provisions relating to the application of
            or
                                                                                review procedures to the award of public supply and
                                                                                public works contracts ( 1), as replaced by Article 41
       (d) the shape of the goods which makes the product                              of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992
            different in appearance from similar competitive                           relating to the coordination of procedures for the
            products;                                                                  award of public service contracts ( 2), require Member
                                                                                States to ensure that a decision taken by a con-
       (e)  something else, and if so what?                                            tracting authority to award a public contract other-
                                                                                wise than by means of a procedure which complies
2.     Where the shape of a product which has been on the                              with the directives relating to the award of public
       market is merely shown to be recognised by a substantial                        contracts may be reviewed effectively and as rapidly
       proportion of the relevant public as denoting the goods                         as possible?


title: Case C-31/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Zakopanem (Poland), lodged on 23 January 2012 — Criminal proceedings against Wojciech Ziemski and Andrzej Kozak

text:
               9.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Zakopanem (Poland), lodged on 23 January 2012 — Criminal proceedings against Wojciech Ziemski and Andrzej Kozak
   (Case C-31/12)
   2012/C 165/12
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Sąd Rejonowy w Zakopanem

      Parties to the main proceedings

   Wojciech Ziemski, Andrzej Kozak

      Question referred

   Must Article 1.11 of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services (1) be interpreted as meaning that the technical regulations, the draft of which must be communicated to the Commission pursuant to Article 8(1) of that directive, also include a legislative provision which defines the statutory concepts and prohibitions which are described and set out in Article 29 of the Ustawa z dnia 19 listopada 2009 roku o grach hazardowych (Polish Law of 19 November 2009 on games of chance) (Dz. U. No 201, position 1540, as amended)?

      (1)  OJ 1998 L 204, p. 37.


title: Case F-26/06: Action brought on  10 March 2006  — Bertolete and Others v Commission

text:
               6.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/34

         Action brought on 10 March 2006 — Bertolete and Others v Commission
   (Case F-26/06)
   (2006/C 108/63)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Marli Bertolete and Others (represented by: L. Vogel, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annulment of the decision of the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment (AACC) of 21 November 2005 rejecting the applicants' complaints of 26 July 2005 criticising the administrative decisions which fixed the grading and remuneration of each of the applicants and also criticising Article 7 of the decision adopted by the College of Commissioners on 27 April 2005 containing the 'General implementing provisions for the transitional measures applicable to staff employed by the Office for Infrastructure in Brussels in the day nurseries and kindergartens in Brussels' (GIP) and Annexes I and II to that decision;

               —

               also, in so far as necessary, annulment of the decisions against which the abovementioned complaints were directed;

               —

               an order that the Commission of the European Communities is to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants, who are currently contract staff working in the day nurseries and kindergartens in Brussels, were already performing the same work under employment contracts subject to Belgian law before they were appointed as contract staff. They dispute their grading and their remuneration fixed by the defendant on their appointment as contract staff.
   In the first plea in law of their application, the applicants submit that by application of the GIP and other provisions relating to the Commission's contract staff, they should have been graded in function group III instead of in function group II, in view of their qualifications and their length of service.
   In the second plea in law, the applicants complain, inter alia, that they have not benefited from the minimum remuneration laid down in Article 6 of the GIP.
   In the third plea in law, the applicants claim infringement of Article 2(2) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants (CEOS), of the Memorandum of Agreement concluded on 22 January 2002 between the Commission and the delegation of the staff of the day nurseries and kindergartens on contracts governed by Belgian law, of the principle of non-discrimination and of the general principles applicable in social security matters. In particular, calculation of the remuneration to be guaranteed to the applicants should not have taken child allowances into account.


title: Case C-420/02: Action brought on 21 November 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
8.2.2003              EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 31/7
Q ues ti o n 4                                                          how are Article 17 of the Directive and the rules on deduction
                                                                        to be interpreted? (With reference to paragraph e), if the law
                                                                        does not change in the way described the purchasing compani-
                                                                        es are entitled to terminate their contracts with the vendor
Does it make any difference to the answers to questions 1 to 3          companies and claim refunds of the prices paid. In the relevant
above if payment is made in respect of the relevant transactions        transactions the contracts between the purchasing companies
at a time when any onward supply of the goods would have                and the vendor companies contain provisions permitting such
been an exempt supply with refund of VAT at the preceding               terminations.)
stage as permitted by Article 28(2)(a) of the Directive?
                                                                        Qu est ion 7
Q ues ti o n 5
                                                                        The Tribunal found (at paragraph 89 of the Decision) that
                                                                        ‘none of the individuals in a position to take decisions for
How is the Directive to be interpreted with particular reference        [BMSL and Gatwick Park]... had any motive or purpose of
to the following questions? In circumstances such as the                substance other than to carry through the VAT avoidance
relevant circumstances and with reference to transactions such          scheme.’ The Appellants have, in their Notice of Appeal to the
as the relevant transactions:                                           High Court, challenged that finding of fact. If that finding of
                                                                        fact were to be set aside on appeal would it make any, and if
a)    should supplies be treated as having been made by the             so, what difference to the answers to questions 1 to 6 above
      outside suppliers to the purchasing companies with no             inclusive?
      supplies being made to or by the vendor companies? or
                                                                        (1 ) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
b)    should supplies be treated as having been made by the                  harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
      outside suppliers to the vendor companies with no                      turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
      supplies being made by the vendor companies to the                     basis of assessment (OJ L 145, 13.06.77, p. 1).
      purchasing companies?
Q ues ti o n 6
                                                                        Action brought on 21 November 2002 by the
                                                                        Commission of the European Communities against the
In circumstances where each vendor company, in the course                                         Hellenic Republic
of an economic activity, makes supplies to a purchasing
company and:                                                                                (Case C-420/02)
a)    the purchasing companies have entered into agreements                                         (2003/C 31/11)
      with the vendor companies to be supplied with goods;
b)    the goods are invoiced and paid for in advance of delivery;
                                                                        An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                        the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 21 No-
c)    VAT is charged on the advance payment in accordance               vember 2002 by the Commission of the European Communi-
      with the second sub-paragraph of Article 10(2) of the             ties, represented by Minas Konstantinidis, of its Legal Service.
      Directive;
                                                                        The Commission claims that the Court should:
d)    the goods are to be used by the purchasing companies in
      making supplies which, if made at the time of the
      payment, would have been exempt supplies with a right             —      declare that, by failing to adopt the necessary measures
      to refund at the preceding stage, but                                    to ensure that the disposal or recovery of waste will be
                                                                               carried out without endangering human health, without
                                                                               risk to water, air, soil, plants and animals and without
e)    each purchasing company intends to take delivery of the                  causing a nuisance through noise or odours, and by
      goods under the agreements only if the law changes in                    granting a permit which does not contain the necessary
      such a way that the purchasing company’s use of the                      information, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its
      goods will be a use in making exempt supplies without a                  obligations under Articles 4 and 9 of Directive 75/442/
      right of refund                                                          EEC (1) on waste as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC (2);
 ---pagebreak--- C 31/8                  EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                            8.2.2003
—      order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                        Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                            1.    The Commission considers that the tax which is levied in
                                                                                respect of the validation of invoices for the import of
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                pharmaceutical products that come from the Community
                                                                                is contrary to Article 12 of the EC Treaty (now Article 25
1.     The Commission considers that the measures taken are
                                                                                EC) and thus constitutes a charge having an effect
       not sufficient to ensure that the landfill site ‘Pera Galinon’
                                                                                equivalent to that of customs duty.
       is operated in a manner which does not create risks to
       the natural and man-made environment and which is
       consistent with the obligations arising from Article 4 of            2.    The Commission observes that classification as a charge
       the directive.                                                             having equivalent effect does not depend on what the
                                                                                charge is called or its amount.
2.     In the Commission’s view, the Hellenic Republic has
       exceeded the limits of the discretion conferred on it by             3.    None of the three exceptions preventing classification as
       Article 4 of the directive, since over a long period it has                a charge having equivalent effect applies.
       not taken effective action to avert pollution of the
       environment and to protect the health of inhabitants
                                                                            4.    Infringement of Article 133 of the EC Treaty.
       from the unlawful deposit of waste at the Pera Galinon
       site in the prefecture of Heraklion, Crete.
3.     The Commission observes that the landfill site in question
       operates without a permit which meets the conditions
       laid down in Article 9 of the directive.
( 1) OJ No L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 39.
( 2) OJ No L 78, 26.3.1991, p. 32.                                          Action brought on 3 December 2002 by the Commission
                                                                            of the European Communities against the Republic of
                                                                                Finland
                                                                                (Case C-437/02)
Action brought on 22 November 2002 by the                                                             (2003/C 31/13)
Commission of the European Communities against the
                         Hellenic Republic
                          (Case C-426/02)                                   An action against the Republic of Finland was brought
                                                                            before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                           (2003/C 31/12)                                   3 December 2002 by the Commission of the European
                                                                            Communities, represented by M. Huttunen and T. van Rijn,
                                                                            acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 No-
                                                                            The Commission claims that the Court should
vember 2002 by the Commission of the European Communi-
ties, represented by Xavier Lewis and Minas Konstantinidis, of
its Legal Service.                                                          —     declare that
                                                                                1.    by failing to enact appropriate detailed rules for the
The Commission claims that the Court should:                                            distribution and use of the fishing rights allocated to
                                                                                it,
—      declare that by applying, for the benefit of the Ethniko
       Organismo Farmakon (National Organisation for Medi-
       cines), a charge in respect of the validation of invoices on               2.    and by failing to monitor compliance with the
       the import of raw materials for pharmaceutical use, semi-                        Community legislation on preservation by monitor-
       finished products and finished products from other                               ing fishing and related activities and by appropriate
       Member States or non-member countries, the Hellenic                              inspection of the fishing fleet and related activities,
       Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
       Articles 23, 25 and 133 of the Treaty establishing the                     3.    and by failing to prohibit provisionally fishing by
       European Community;                                                              vessels flying its flag or registered in its territory
                                                                                when the quotas allocated to it were deemed to be
—      order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                                    exhausted,


title: Case C-305/13: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Haeger & Schmidt GmbH v Mutuelles du Mans assurances IARD (MMA IARD), Jacques Lorio, Dominique Miquel, in his capacity as liquidator of Safram intercontinental SARL, Ace Insurance SA NV, Va Tech JST SA, Axa Corporate Solutions SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations — Article 4(1), (2), (4) and (5) — Law applicable by default — Commission contract for the carriage of goods — Contract for the carriage of goods)

text:
               8.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 439/8

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Haeger & Schmidt GmbH v Mutuelles du Mans assurances IARD (MMA IARD), Jacques Lorio, Dominique Miquel, in his capacity as liquidator of Safram intercontinental SARL, Ace Insurance SA NV, Va Tech JST SA, Axa Corporate Solutions SA
   (Case C-305/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations - Article 4(1), (2), (4) and (5) - Law applicable by default - Commission contract for the carriage of goods - Contract for the carriage of goods))
   (2014/C 439/10)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Haeger & Schmidt GmbH

      Defendants: Mutuelles du Mans assurances IARD (MMA IARD), Jacques Lorio, Dominique Miquel, in his capacity as liquidator of Safram intercontinental SARL, Ace Insurance SA NV, Va Tech JST SA, Axa Corporate Solutions SA

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The last sentence of Article 4(4) of the Convention on the Law applicable to Contractual Obligations, opened for signature in Rome on 19 June 1980, must be interpreted as applying to a commission contract for the carriage of goods solely when the main purpose of the contract consists in the actual transport of the goods concerned, which it is for the referring court to verify.

               2.

               Article 4(4) of the Convention must be interpreted as meaning that, where the law applicable to a contract for the carriage of goods cannot be fixed under the second sentence of that provision, it must be determined in accordance with the general rule laid down in Article 4(1), that is to say, the law governing that contract is that of the country with which it is most closely connected.

               3.

               Article 4(2) of the Convention must be interpreted as meaning that, where it is argued that a contract has a closer connection with a country other than that the law of which is designated by the presumption laid down therein, the national court must compare the connections existing between that contract and, on the one hand, the country whose law is designated by the presumption and, on the other, the other country concerned. In so doing, the national court must take account of the circumstances as a whole, including the existence of other contracts connected with the contract in question.

      (1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.


title: Case C-660/15 P: Appeal brought on 8 December 2015 by Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 24 September 2015 in Case T-125/12: Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd v European Commission

text:
               15.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 59/9

         Appeal brought on 8 December 2015 by Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 24 September 2015 in Case T-125/12: Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd v European Commission
   (Case C-660/15 P)
   (2016/C 059/09)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd (represented by: M. Honoré and S. Kalsmose-Hjelmborg, advokater)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of Denmark, TV2/Danmark A/S

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment in Case T-125/12, Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd v Commission, and

               —

               annul Commission Decision 2011/839/EU (1) of 20 April 2011 on measures adopted by the Danish state in favour of TV2/Danmark (EUT 2011 L 340, s. 1), and

               —

               order the defendant at first instance to pay the costs of Viasat both incurred in the first instance and before your Court
               alternatively,

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal, and

               —

               refer the case back to the General Court, and

               —

               reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the form of order sought, Viasat contends that the General Court erred in law when stating that in its assessment under Article 106(2) TFEU the Commission was not required to take account of the fact that aid to TV2 had been granted without observing fundamental principles of transparency and cost efficiency.
   More in particular, Viasat contends that the General Court erred in law (1) by relying on the M6 judgment and the related case law to dismiss Viasat’s claims, (2) by holding that Viasat’s arguments lead to a ‘logical impasse’ (3) by rejecting the significance of the 2005 and 2011 SGEI Communications and the 2009 Broadcasting Communication (4) by holding that the 2001 Broadcasting Communication prevented the Commission from applying the methodology which, in Viasat’s view, flows from Article 106(2) TFEU.

      (1)  Commission Decision of 20 April 2011 on the measures implemented by Denmark (C 2/03) for TV2/Danmark

      OJ L 340, p. 1.


title: Case C-388/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 29 June 2017 — Konkurrensverket v SJ AB

text:
               4.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 293/19

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 29 June 2017 — Konkurrensverket v SJ AB
   (Case C-388/17)
   (2017/C 293/23)
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Konkurrensverket

      Defendant: SJ AB

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the second subparagraph of Article 5(1) of Directive 2004/17 (1) be interpreted as meaning that there is a network in the field of transport services when transport services on a State-administered rail network for national and international rail traffic are provided in accordance with provisions in national legislation which implement Directive 2012/34 (2), which involve the allocation of rail infrastructure capacity on the basis of requests from railway companies and a requirement that all requests are to be met so far as possible?

               2.

               Must the first subparagraph of Article 5(1) of Directive 2004/17 be interpreted as meaning that an activity which is carried out by a railway company such as is referred to in Directive 2012/34 and which entails the provision of transport services to the public on a rail network constitutes the provision or operation of a network as referred to in that provision of the directive?

      (1)  Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (Utilities Directive) (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 1).

      (2)  Directive 2012/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 establishing a single European railway area (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 32).


title: Case C-214/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia lodged on  11 May 2006  — Colasfalti srl v Provincia di Milano, ATI Legrenzi Srl,Impresa Costruzioni Edili e Stradali dei F. 11i Paccani Snc

text:
               29.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia lodged on 11 May 2006 — Colasfalti srl v Provincia di Milano, ATI Legrenzi Srl,Impresa Costruzioni Edili e Stradali dei F. 11i Paccani Snc
   (Case C-214/06)
   (2006/C 178/31)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant(s): Colasfalti srl

      Defendant(s): Provincia di Milano, ATI Legrenzi Srl,Impresa Costruzioni Edili e Stradali dei F. 11i Paccani Snc
   Question(s) referred

               1.

               Does the rule laid down in Article 30(4) of Directive 93/37/EEC (1) or the similar rule contained in Article 55 (1) and (2) of Directive 2004/18/EC (2) (where that is regarded as the relevant provision), that, where tenders appear to be abnormally low in relation to the works, the contracting authority shall, before it may reject those tenders, request, in writing, details of the constituent elements of the tender which it considers relevant and shall verify those constituent elements taking account of the explanations received, constitute a fundamental principle of Community law, such as to transcend the formal bounds set by the value of the contracts mentioned in Article 6 of Directive 93/37/EC and is it, therefore, capable of applying also to contracts when their value does not cross that threshold?

               2.

               Is the rule established by Article 30(4) of Directive 93/37/EEC or the similar rule contained in Article 55(1) and (2) of Directive 2004/18/EC (where that is regarded as the relevant provision), according to which, if tenders appear to be abnormally low in relation to the works, the contracting authority shall, before it may reject those tenders, request, in writing, details of the constituent elements of the tender which it considers relevant and shall verify those constituent elements taking account of the explanations received, while not presenting the characteristics of a fundamental principle of Community law, nevertheless an implied consequence of or a ‘principle deriving from’ the principle of competition, considered in conjunction with the principles of administrative transparency and non-discrimination on grounds of nationality and is it therefore, as such, directly binding, taking precedence over possibly incompatible national provisions adopted by the Member States to regulate public works contracts to which Community law is not directly applicable?

      (1)  OJ 199, p. 54.

      (2)  OJ 134, p. 114.


title: Case T-385/13 P: Appeal brought on 25 July 2013 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 14 May 2013 in Case F-4/12, Marcuccio v Commission

text:
               28.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 284/4

         Appeal brought on 25 July 2013 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 14 May 2013 in Case F-4/12, Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case T-385/13 P)
   2013/C 284/04
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

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

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               Annul the order under appeal in its entirety and without exception;

               —

               Refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those relied on in Case T-203/13 P Marcuccio v Commission.


title: Case T-580/15: Judgment of the General Court of 27 June 2017 — Flamagas v EUIPO — MatMind (CLIPPER) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Three-dimensional EU trade mark — Shape of a lighter with a lateral fin, featuring the word element CLIPPER — Shape necessary to obtain a technical result — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — No description of the mark in the application for registration)

text:
               7.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 June 2017 — Flamagas v EUIPO — MatMind (CLIPPER)
   (Case T-580/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Three-dimensional EU trade mark - Shape of a lighter with a lateral fin, featuring the word element CLIPPER - Shape necessary to obtain a technical result - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No description of the mark in the application for registration))
   (2017/C 256/20)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Flamagas, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: I. Valdelomar Serrano, G. Hinarejos Mulliez and D. Gabarre Armengol, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Hanf, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court, being: MatMind Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipriani and M. Cavattoni, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 July 2015 (Case R 924/2013-1) relating to invalidity proceedings between MatMind and Flamagas.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Flamagas, SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.


title: Case T-808/16: Action brought on 14 November 2016 — Jean Patou Worldwide v EUIPO — Emboga (HISPANITAS JOY IS A CHOICE)

text:
               16.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 14/54

         Action brought on 14 November 2016 — Jean Patou Worldwide v EUIPO — Emboga (HISPANITAS JOY IS A CHOICE)
   (Case T-808/16)
   (2017/C 014/64)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Jean Patou Worldwide Ltd (Watford, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Baran, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Emboga, SA (Petrel, Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘HISPANITAS JOY IS A CHOICE’ — Application for registration No 12 789 971

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 June 2016 in Case R 235/2016-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs, including those incurred by the applicant before the Office.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-500/14: Action brought on 2 July 2014  — Derivados del Flúor v Commission

text:
               25.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/53

         Action brought on 2 July 2014 — Derivados del Flúor v Commission
   (Case T-500/14)
   2014/C 282/69
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Derivados del Flúor, SA (Bilbao, Spain) (represented by: J. De Juan Casadevall, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               in the alternative, if the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ (STLS) is held to be unlawful State aid, order recovery only until the date of publication in the Official Journal of the European Union of the decision initiating the formal investigation, namely, 21 September 2011; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present action, the applicant contests Commission Decision C (2013) 4426 final of 17 July 2013 on the tax regime applicable to certain finance lease agreements, also known as the Spanish Tax Lease System (State Aid SA.21233 C/2011 (ex NN/2011, ex CP 137/2006))
   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those raised in Case T-401/14 Duro Felguera v Commission and Case T-700/13 Bankia v Commission.
   The applicant alleges, in particular: incorrect application in the present case of Articles 17, 18 and 19 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 TFEU; inexistence of a competitive tax advantage; incorrect identification of the beneficiary of the State aid; compatibility of the State aid with the interior market; misuse of powers by the Commission; and breach of the principles of equal treatment and the protection of legitimate expectations.


title: Case T-273/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of  31 January 2006  — Merck Sharp & Dohme and Others v Commission (Medicinal products for human use — Marketing authorisation for products containing the substance enalapril — Commission decision ordering amendment of the summary of the product's characteristics — Competence)

text:
               8.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/25

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 31 January 2006 — Merck Sharp & Dohme and Others v Commission
   (Case T-273/03) (1)

   (Medicinal products for human use - Marketing authorisation for products containing the substance enalapril - Commission decision ordering amendment of the summary of the product's characteristics - Competence)
   (2006/C 86/48)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Merck Sharp & Dohme Ltd (Hoddesdon, United Kingdom), Merck Sharp & Dohme BV (Haarlem, Netherlands), Laboratoires Merck Sharp & Dohme-Chibret (Paris, France), MSD Sharp & Dohme GmbH (Haar, Germany), Merck Sharp & Dohme (Italia) SpA (Rome, Italy), Merck Sharp & Dohme, Lda (Paço de Arcos, Portugal), Merck Sharp & Dohme de España, SA (Madrid, Spain), Merck Sharp & Dohme GmbH (Vienna, Austria), Vianex SA (Nea Erythrea, Greece), (represented by: G. Berrisch and P. Bogaert, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Flynn and B. Stromsky, Agents)
   Action for
   annulment of Commission Decision C(2003) 1752 of 21 May 2003 on the marketing of medicinal products for human use containing the substance enalapril
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision C(2003) 1752 of 21 May 2003 on the marketing of medicinal products for human use containing the substance enalapril;

               2.

               Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 251, 18.10.2003.


title: Case T-674/16: Action brought on 22 September 2016 — Seigneur v ECB

text:
               14.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 419/53

         Action brought on 22 September 2016 — Seigneur v ECB
   (Case T-674/16)
   (2016/C 419/70)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Olivier Seigneur (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: M. Vandenbussche and L. Levi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Central Bank

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the application admissible and well founded;

         accordingly:

               —

               annul the decision of the Chief Service Officer (CSO), adopted on 29 February 2016 under the authority of the management board and notified to staff on 11 March 2016, to exclude the applicant from the additional salary increase (ASI) exercise for the year 2016;

               —

               annul the decision rejecting the special appeal dated 5 July 2016 and received on 13 July 2016;

               —

               order the payment of compensation for the non-material damage sustained by the applicant consisting in the loss of a chance of obtaining an ASI in 2016 evaluated at EUR 52 920;

               —

               order the payment of compensation for non-material damage assessed on an ex aequo et bono basis at EUR 15 000;

               —

               order the defendant to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of non-discrimination, Articles 12 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 51 of the conditions of employment of ECB staff, the right to career and promotion prospects as well as the principle of legal certainty.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging the inability of the Chief Services Officer to decide not to follow the procedure set out in Circular No 1/2011 of 14 February 2011 concerning additional salary increases in respect of the applicant.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging lack of consultation of the Staff Committee.


title: Case C-301/06: Action brought on 6 July 2006 — Ireland v Council of the European Union, European Parliament

text:
               30.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 237/5

         Action brought on 6 July 2006 — Ireland v Council of the European Union, European Parliament
   (Case C-301/06)
   (2006/C 237/09)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Ireland (represented by: D. O'Hagan, Agent, E. Fitzsimons SC, D. Barniville BL)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union, European Parliament
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC (1) on the grounds that it was not adopted on an appropriate legal basis.

               —

               Order the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Ireland submits that the choice of Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (‘TEC’) as the legal basis for Directive 2006/24/EC (‘the Directive’) is fundamentally flawed. Ireland further submits that neither Article 95 TEC nor any other provision of the TEC can provide a proper legal basis for the Directive. It is primarily Ireland's case that the sole or, alternatively, the main or predominant purpose of the Directive is to facilitate the investigation, detection and prosecution of serious crime, including terrorism. In those circumstances, it is Ireland's contention that the only permissible legal base for the measures contained in the Directive is Title VI of the Treaty on European Union (‘TEU’), in particular Articles 30, 31(1)(c) and 34(2)(b).
   In support of its submissions, Ireland has indicated that a consideration of the recitals to and the fundamental provisions of the Directive unquestionably demonstrates that reliance upon Article 95 TEC as the legal basis for the Directive is wholly inappropriate and unsustainable. In that regard, it has pointed out that the Directive is clearly and unambiguously directed towards the fight against serious crime. Accordingly, Ireland submits that this constitutes the main or predominant purpose of the Directive and, indeed, its sole objective.
   It is established that measures based upon Article 95 TEC must have as their ‘centre of gravity’ the approximation of national laws to benefit the functioning of the internal market. The provisions of the Directive are concerned with combating serious crime and are not intended to address any defects in the internal market.
   While a defect arising from differences of national laws has been asserted, it has not been established.
   In the alternative, even if, contrary to Ireland's fundamental submission, the Directive does have as one of its objectives the prevention of distortions or obstacles to the internal market, Ireland submits that this objective must be regarded as being purely incidental in character to the demonstrated main or predominant objective of the fight against crime.

      (1)  OJ L 105, p. 54


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 November 2000 in Joined Cases T-485/93, T-491/93, T-494/93 and T-61/98: Société Anonyme Louis Dreyfus & Cie v Commission of the European Communities (Emergency aid provided by the Community to the States of the former Soviet Union — Invitation to tender — Action for annulment — Action for damages)

text:
C 118/32                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          21.4.2001
                                                         COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               3.    Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the
                                                                                costs incurred by each of the applicants up until delivery of the
                                                                                judgments of the Court of Justice of 5 May 1998. Each
                                                                                applicant is to bear its own costs incurred following delivery of
                       of 8 November 2000                                       those judgments and the applicants are jointly and severally to
                                                                                pay the costs incurred by the Commission after that delivery.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 198 of 22.7.1993, C 231 of 27.8.1993 and C 209 of
in Joined Cases T-485/93, T-491/93, T-494/93 and T-61/98:                     4.7.1998.
Société Anonyme Louis Dreyfus & Cie v Commission of
                 the European Communities (1)
(Emergency aid provided by the Community to the States of
the former Soviet Union — Invitation to tender — Action
             for annulment — Action for damages)                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 8 November 2000
                          (2001/C 118/93)                                 in Case T-509/93: Glencore Grain Ltd v Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
                                                                          (Emergency aid provided by the Community to the States of
                                                                          the former Soviet Union — Invitation to tender — Action
              (Languages of the case: French and Dutch)                                               for annulment)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/94)
In Joined Cases T-485/93, T-491/93, T-494/93 and T-61/98:
Société Anonyme Louis Dreyfus & Cie, established in Paris                                      (Language of the case: Dutch)
(France), represented by R. Saint-Esteben, of the Paris Bar, with
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                   In Case T-509/98: Glencore Grain Ltd, formerly trading as
A. May, 398 Route d’Esch, Glencore Grain Ltd, formerly                    Richco Commodities Ltd, established in Hamilton (Bermuda),
Richco Commodities Ltd, established in Hamilton (Bermuda),                represented by M. Slotboom, P.V.F. Bos and J.G.A. van
represented by P.V.F. Bos and J.G.A. van Zuuren, of the                   Zuuren, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address for service in
Rotterdam Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at               Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe, v
the Chambers of M. Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe, Compagnie                       Commission of the European Communities (Agents: initially
Continentale (France), established at Labège (France), represent-         B.J. Drijber and N. Khan and subsequently M.-J. Jonczy and
ed by P. Chabrier, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service          H. van Vliet) — application for annulment of the Commission’s
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of E. Arendt, 8-10 Rue                      decision of 12 July 1993 addressed to the State Export-Import
Mathias Hardt, v Commission of the European Communities                   Bank of Ukraine, refusing to approve the contract entered into
(Agents: initially M.-J. Jonczy, B.J. Drijber and N. Khan and             between the applicant and Ukrimpex — the Court of First
subsequently Ms Jonczy and H. van Vliet) — application, first,            Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: J. Pirrung, President,
for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 1 April 1993                A. Potocki and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; J. Palacio González,
relating to contracts concluded between each of the applicants            Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
and Exportkhleb and, second, for compensation for the                     8 November 2000, in which it:
damage allegedly suffered as a result of that decision — the
Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of:                    1.    Dismisses the action;
J. Pirrung, President, A. Potocki and A.W.H. Meij, Judges;
J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given         2.    Orders the Commission to pay the costs incurred up until
a judgment on 8 November 2000, in which it:                                     delivery of the judgment of the Court of Justice of 5 May 1998
                                                                                and orders the applicant to pay the costs incurred following
                                                                                delivery of that judgment.
1.    Joins Cases T-485/93, T-491/93, T-494/93 and T-61/98
      for the purposes of the judgment;
                                                                          (1) OJ C 282 of 20.10.1993.
2.    Dismisses the actions;