title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 6 October 1998 in the case of Hauptzollamt Neubrandenburg v. SAGPOL s.c. Transport Miçdzynarodowy i Spedycja (PL) (Case C-406/98)

text:
23.1.1999             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 20/17
Arcosu Srl    against Regione Autonoma della Sardegna,              2. If the answer to the questions at (1) above leads to the
Organismo     Comprensoriale No 24 della Sardegna and                   conclusion that the carnet holder has not failed to
ERSAT Ð       Ente Regionale per l'Assistenza Tecnica in                comply with the time-limit for proving the actual place
Agricoltura  on the following questions:                                where the offence or irregularity was committed:
(1) Despite the silence of the Italian legislature, is it in
     any event possible to apply the Community                          What are the requirements for furnishing satisfactory
     provisions in question to persons other than natural               proof of the place where the offence or irregularity
     persons, and in particular to companies having legal               was actually committed in the course of a transport
     personality?                                                       operation carried out under cover of a TIR carnet
                                                                        (first subparagraph of Article 454(3) of Commission
(2) If an affirmative answer is given to the first question,            Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93)? May a statement by
     what are the necessary and sufficient conditions for               the carnet holder and the testimony of the lorry driver
     conferring the status of farmers practising farming as             who has effected the transport for the carnet holder be
     their main occupation on persons other than natural                sufficient proof, or can proof only be provided by
     persons and, in particular, on companies with legal                documents which unambiguously show that the
     personality?                                                       competent authorities of the other Member State have
                                                                        found that the offence or irregularity was committed
                                                                        on their territory?
(1) OJ L 93, 30.3.1985, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 218, 6.8.1991, p. 1.
                                                                    3. If the Court of Justice considers that proof of the
                                                                        actual place where the offence or irregularity was
                                                                        committed was provided in due time, and considers it
                                                                        permissible to adduce such proof in the manner
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundes-                     described:
finanzhof by order of that court of 6 October 1998 in the
case of Hauptzollamt Neubrandenburg v. SAGPOL s.c.
        Transport MicËdzynarodowy i Spedycja (PL)                       Are the third and fourth subparagraphs of
                       (Case C-406/98)                                  Article 454(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 to be
                                                                        interpreted as meaning that they also apply in cases
                        (1999/C 20/27)
                                                                        where the duties were recovered in the Member State
                                                                        where the offence or irregularity was detected, even
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of                      though it has been proved within the period prescribed
the European Communities by an order of the                             by the first subparagraph of Article 454(3) and by
Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) of 6 October                    Article 455(1) of Regulation No 2454/93 that the
1998, which was received at the Court Registry on                       offence or irregularity was actually committed in
16 November 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of               another Member State?
Hauptzollamt Neubrandenburg v. SAGPOL s.c. Transport
MicËdzynarodowy i Spedycja (PL) on the following
questions:
1. Is it compatible with the first subparagraph of
    Article 454(3) and with Article 455(1) of Commission
    Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 laying down provisions              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
    for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC)              Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division,
    No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs                   Divisional Court, by order of that court of 15 October
    Code (OJ L 253, 11.10.1993, p. 1) if, where a                   1998, in the case of Commissioners of Customs and
    consignment which has been cleared for the external                           Excise against Mirror Group plc.
    transit procedure under a TIR carnet is not produced
    at the destination, the customs authorities of the                                    (Case C-409/98)
    Member State of dispatch set the carnet holder a
                                                                                (1999/C 20/28)
    preclusive period of three months in which to provide
    satisfactory proof of the actual place where the offence
    or irregularity was committed, with the consequence
    that proof which is produced later leaves unaffected            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    the competence of the Member State of dispatch to               European Communities by an order of the High Court of
    recover the duties?                                             Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division,
                                                                    Divisional Court, of 15 October 1998, which was received
    If the above question is answered in the negative:              at the Court Registry on 17 November 1998, for a
    Within what period may the carnet holder prove the              preliminary ruling in the case of Commissioners of
    actual place where the offence or irregularity has been         Customs and Excise against Mirror Group plc, on the
    committed?                                                      following questions:


title: Case T-132/98: Order of the Court of First Instance of 17 December 2008 — Groupe Perry et Isibiris v Commission

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/50

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 17 December 2008 — Groupe Perry et Isibiris v Commission
   (Case T-132/98) (1)

   (2009/C 55/90)

      Language of the case: French

   The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 312, 10.10.1998.


title: Joined Cases C-692/15 to C-694/15: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 May 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Security Service Srl (C-692/15), Il Camaleonte Srl (C-693/15), Vigilanza Privata Turris Srl (C-694/15) v Ministero dell’Interno (C-692/15 and C-693/15), Questura di Napoli, Questura di Roma (C-692/15) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Article 53(2) — Freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services — Purely internal situation — Court’s manifest lack of jurisdiction)

text:
               1.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/8

         Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 May 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Security Service Srl (C-692/15), Il Camaleonte Srl (C-693/15), Vigilanza Privata Turris Srl (C-694/15) v Ministero dell’Interno (C-692/15 and C-693/15), Questura di Napoli, Questura di Roma (C-692/15)
   (Joined Cases C-692/15 to C-694/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Article 53(2) - Freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services - Purely internal situation - Court’s manifest lack of jurisdiction))
   (2016/C 279/13)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Security Service Srl (C-692/15), Il Camaleonte Srl (C-693/15), Vigilanza Privata Turris Srl (C-694/15)

      Defendants: Ministero dell’Interno (C-692/15 and C-693/15), Questura di Napoli, Questura di Roma (C-692/15)

      Operative part of the order

   The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State, Italy) by decisions of 12 November 2015.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 21.3.2016.


title: Case T-446/09: Action brought on 9 November 2009 — Escola Superior Agrária de Coimbra v Commission

text:
               13.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/39

         Action brought on 9 November 2009 — Escola Superior Agrária de Coimbra v Commission
   (Case T-446/09)
   2010/C 37/54
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Escola Superior Agrária de Coimbra (Bencanta, Portugal) (represented by: J. Pais do Amaral, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of Commission Decision D(2009)224268 of 9 September 2009;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Lack of reasoning in relation to the requirement of reimbursement of the amount stipulated in point 8 of the letter of 12 August 2009.
   Infringement of points 21.2 and 22 of the administrative framework provisions in relation to the other amounts, since a system was in place to record the time dedicated by each of the participants to the project, which indicated the name of the person and the time, in real time, which that person dedicated to the project.
   Error of fact since the administration can act only if sure that the facts are correct. Mere doubt on the part of the administration as to whether the time recorded on the timesheets was actually dedicated to the project or not is not sufficient since the burden of proof is on the Commission.
   Misassumption on the part of the Commission since there is no written obligation to adopt a specific type of system to record the duration of work carried out which is more rigorous than the recording of information on timesheets. Thus, while the contract is being executed and when it is no longer possible to alter the previous legitimate procedure for registering time dedicated to the project, namely by means of timesheets, the Commission cannot legitimately require more than what was originally stated and set out in the contract. In addition, it is inappropriate to make such an onerous demand that time dedicated to the project be recorded photographically.
   The contested act infringes the principles of good faith, legitimate expectations, transparency, proportionality, and good and reasonable administration since the rules in place for recording time dedicated to the project are new, which is corroborated by the fact that those rules feature explicitly and clearly in subsequent versions of the program at issue.
   Error in the assessment of the facts in so far as the size and the content of the refund ordered by the Commission is disproportionate to the content and nature of the alleged irregularities, given that it was not possible to attain the results reflected in being classed in tenth position out of 200 projects, without dedicating significantly more time to the project than actually paid for (once the refund ordered has been deducted).


title: Case T-120/11: Action brought on 2 March 2011 — BFA v Council

text:
               30.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 130/18

         Action brought on 2 March 2011 — BFA v Council
   (Case T-120/11)
   2011/C 130/32
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Banque pour le financement de l’agriculture (BFA) (Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire) (represented by: J. –C. Tchikaya, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011 amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire, and Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d'Ivoire, to the extent that they concern the applicant;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments raised by the applicant are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-118/11 Attey v Council.


title: Case C-64/09: Action brought on 13 February 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

text:
               18.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/16

         Action brought on 13 February 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
   (Case C-64/09)
   2009/C 90/25
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Oliver and J.-B. Laignelot, Agents)

      Defendant: French Republic

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws and regulations necessary to ensure the complete and correct implementation of Article 2(13), Article 4(2)(a), Article 5(3) and (4), Article 6(3), Article 7(1) and Article 8(3) of Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of life vehicles, (1) the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the French Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its action, the Commission puts forward seven pleas in law alleging the incorrect implementation into French law of some provisions of Directive 2000/53/EC.
   The applicant submits, first of all, that the implementation of the definition in Article 2(13) relating to ‘dismantling information’ for end-of life vehicles has not been carried out in a sufficiently clear and precise manner in so far as the corresponding national provision is substantially more restrictive in scope than the directive and above all does not mention any connection with the objective of correct and environmentally sound treatment referred to by the Community legislature.
   Secondly, according to the applicant, the implementation out of time of Article 4(2)(a) has resulted in vehicles, materials and components, not covered by the exemptions and containing lead, mercury, cadmium or hexavalent chromium, being present on the market for 18 months, since the relevant national provisions were applicable only to vehicles received and classified by type from 31 December 2004, whereas Article 4(2)(a) of the Directive refers, for its part, to 1 July 2003.
   The applicant also submits that the procedure laid down in Article 5(3) relating to the issue of a certificate of destruction of an end-of life vehicle has not been correctly reproduced in French law, which might create confusion, in particular for the owners of vehicles from other Member States. The Commission criticises specifically, in that connection, the fact that the certificate of destruction is delivered not at the time of the transfer of the vehicle but only after its physical destruction and that that certificate is delivered not to the holder of the end-of use vehicle but to the prefect of the département where the vehicle was registered.
   Fourthly, the Commission criticises the implementation of Article 5(4), which prevents that provision from being effective in so far as it allows some of the authorised facilities — the ‘démolisseurs agréés’ (the authorised demolishers) — to refuse to accept end-of use vehicles and fails to provide for a system to recompense those demolishers.
   Likewise, the implementation of Article 6(3) fails to have regard to the concept of ‘stripping’, referring to the first stage of the treatment operations of end-of use vehicles, namely that of the removal of those parts which are easily dismantled, prior to the depollution operation.
   The applicant also criticises the implementation of Article 7(1) in so far as the French authorities encourage the recycling of vehicle components ‘whenever the technical and economic circumstances allow so’, whereas the Directive sets out a more binding obligation to recycle ‘when environmentally viable’.
   Lastly, it stresses that Article 8(3) obliges the Member States to take express measures to ensure vehicle manufacturers and component producers provide dismantling information, in the form of manuals or by means of electronic media, for each type of new vehicle put on the market.

      (1)  OJ 2000 L 269, p. 34


title: Action brought on 11 June 1997 by the Netherlands Antilles against the Council of the European Union (Case T-179/97)

text:
26 . 7. 97                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 228/25
The selection criteria laid down in Regulation (EEC )                        Action brought on 6 June 1997 by Jean-Claude Baiwir
No 866/90, by means of Decision 90/342/EEC ( 2), exclude                        against the Commission of the European Communities
EAGGF financing except for investments carried out 'in                                                 ( Case T-l 74/97)
units of small size '. The contested decision excluded the
grant of aid on the ground that the applicant undertaking                                                ( 97/C 228/59 )
did not fall into that category since its annual production
level exceeded 20 000 tonnes .
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
First of all, the applicant alleges infringement of                          An action against the Commission of the European
Article 8 ( 3 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 866/90 and breach                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
of the principle of legal certainty. In its opinion,                         Instance of the European Communities on 6 June 1997 by
when restricting financing for projects submitted by                         Jean-Claude Baiwir, resident in Court St Etienne, Belgium,
undertakings which were 'units of small size', the                           represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an
Commission failed to specify what was to be understood                       address for service in Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Myson
by that term. It was, on the contrary, legitimate to                         Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange.
consider, as did both the applicant and the national
authority, that undertakings should be classified as being
'of small size' on the basis of the usual criteria relating to               The applicant claims that the Court should:
the number of employees and turnover. If the defendant
wishes to adopt criteria for the classification of small
undertakings other than the usual ones, by concentrating                     — annul the Commission decision of 31 July 1996
on the volume of production, it ought to have followed                            rejecting the applicant's request that it give
the procedure provided for in Article 29 of Regulation                            consideration to the possible application of
( EEC ) No 4253/88 (3 ), as required by Article 8 ( 3 ) of                        Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
Regulation ( EEC ) No 866/90 . Moreover, those criteria
ought to have been brought in advance to the attention
                                                                             — order the defendant to pay the costs .
not only of the Member States but also of interested
parties, by means of publication in the Official Journal of
the European Communities. On this point, the applicant                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
refers to paragraph 37 et seq. of the judgment of the
Court of First Instance in Case T-478/93 Wafer Zoo v.
Commission (4 ) [ 1995] ECR 11-1482 concerning a similar                     The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
dispute.                                                                     relied on in Case T-l 6/97 I 1 ).
                                                                             (') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
Second, the applicant points out the contradictions in the
reasons stated for the contested decision. Thus, on the one
hand, the Commission asserts that the applicant's project
was rejected because it was submitted by an undertaking
whose production exceeded 20 000 tonnes. On the other
hand, the same communication states that an undertaking
with a production volume within that limit cannot be                         Action brought on 11 June 1997 by the Netherlands
accepted because 'with regard to dried medicinal herbs, in                        Antilles against the Council of the European Union
view of existing overcapacity and the difficulties on the                                              ( Case T-l 79/97)
market, it will not be possible to finance any project in the
dried-fodder sector'.                                                                                ( 97/C 228/60 )
f 1 ) Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 866/90 of 20 March 1990 on                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
      improving the processing and marketing conditions for
      agricultural products ( OJ No L 91 , 6 . 4 . 1990 , p. 1 ).
(2 ) Commission Decision 90/342/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the                    An action against the Council of the European Union was
      selection criteria to be adopted for investments for improving         brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
      the processing and marketing conditions for agricultural and           Communities on 11 June 1997 by the Netherlands
      forestry products ( OJ No L 163 , 29 . 6 . 1990 , p. 71 ).             Antilles, represented by R V. F. Bos and M. M. Slotboom,
( 3 ) Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988
                                                                             of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address for service in
      laying down provisions for implementing Regulation ( EEC )
      No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the            Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 11
      different Structural Funds between themselves and with the             Rue Goethe .
      operations of the European Investment Bank and the other
      existing financial instruments ( OJ No L 374, 31 . 12 . 1988 ,
      p. 1 .                                                                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
(4 ) Case T-478/93 Wafer Zoo v. Commission [ 1995 ] ECR 11-1482 .
                                                                             — annul Council Regulation No 1036/97 of 2 June 1997
                                                                                introducing safeguard measures in respect of imports
 ---pagebreak--- No C 228/26              EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                     26 . 7 . 97
      of rice originating in the overseas countries and                       Removal from the register of T-143/95 (')
      territories ( J ),                                                                        ( 97/C 228/61 )
— order the Council to pay the costs of the case .                                 (Language of the case: German)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  By order of 27 May 1997 the President of the First
                                                                     Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
The pleas in law and main arguments are identical to                 Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
those in Case T-163/97 (2 ).                                         Case   T-143/95 :     Werner     Haberer   v. Council   of the
                                                                     European Union and Commission of the European
(') OJ No L 151 , 10 . 6 . 1997, p . 8 .                             Communities .
( 2 ) OJ No C 212, 12 . 7 . 1997, p. 31 .
                                                                     (') OJ No C 229 , 2 . 9 . 1995 .


title: Case F-4/16: Action brought on 15 August 2016 — OT v Commission

text:
               17.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/31

         Action brought on 15 August 2016 — OT v Commission
   (Case F-4/16)
   (2016/C 383/41)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: OT (represented by: D. Sobor, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the defendant’s decisions refusing to accept the applicant’s candidature for the post of Director of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, to grant the applicant’s request for assistance or to open an administrative inquiry with regard to the alleged irregularities and illegalities in the selection procedure concerned, and claim for compensation for the material and non-material damage which the applicant alleges to have suffered.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the defendant’s decision of 26 September 2014 refusing to accept the applicant’s candidature for the post of Director of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction;

               —

               annul the defendant’s decision of 9 April 2015 rejecting the applicant’s complaint and request for assistance;

               —

               annul the decision of 22 October 2015 rejecting the applicant’s complaint;

               —

               order the defendant to pay a sum of EUR 2 836 107 (that is two million eight hundred and thirty-six thousand one hundred and seven euro) covering the material damages suffered by the Applicant;

               —

               order the defendant to pay a sum of EUR 100 000 (that is one hundred thousand euro) covering the non-material damages suffered by the applicant; and

               —

               order the defendant to bear the costs of the applicant.


title: Case F-28/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 15 March 2011 — Mioni v Commission (Staff cases — Contractual agents — Remuneration — Expatriation allowance — Conditions laid down in Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Habitual residence prior to taking up duties)

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/23

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 15 March 2011 — Mioni v Commission
   (Case F-28/10) (1)

   (Staff cases - Contractual agents - Remuneration - Expatriation allowance - Conditions laid down in Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Habitual residence prior to taking up duties)
   2012/C 138/45
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Gaëtan Barthélémy Maxence Mioni (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Vogel, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Martin and B. Eggers, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision putting an end to the payment of the expatriation allowance previously paid to the applicant

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action brought by Mr Mioni;

               2.

               Orders Mr Mioni to pay all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 179, 3.7.2010, p. 58.


title: Case T-177/04: Action brought on 14 May 2004 by easyJet Airline Company Limited against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               7.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 201/17

         Action brought on 14 May 2004 by easyJet Airline Company Limited against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-177/04)
   (2004/C 201/37)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 14 May 2004 by easyJet Airline Company Limited, Luton, United Kingdom, represented by Mr J. Cook, Mr S. Dolan and Mr J. Parker Solicitors.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the Commission's Decision of 11 February 2004 in Case No. COMP/M.3280 (Air France/KLM) declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market, subject to conditions, in accordance with Article 6 (1) (b) and Article 6 (2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 4064/89 (1)

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   In the contested decision the Commission concluded that the merger between the airlines ‘Air France’ and ‘KLM’ would result in the creation or strengthening of a dominant position on a total of fourteen city-to-city air routes. However, the Commission declared the concentration compatible with the common market, subject to compliance with the undertakings submitted by the parties to the merger.
   The applicant, which is itself an airline company, seeks the annulment of that decision invoking a number of manifest errors of assessment by the Commission. More particularly, it claims that the Commission failed to consider properly the following matters:

               —

               the enhancement of the merged entity's dominance on routes where there was no existing overlap between Air France and KLM;

               —

               whether the merger created or strengthened a dominant position in markets for the purchase of airport services;

               —

               the effects of the merger on potential competition.

         It further claims that the Commission failed to provide adequate reasons to support its conclusion that the airports ‘Charles de Gaulle’ and ‘Orly’ in Paris were substitutable. Finally, it considers that the undertakings of the parties were manifestly inadequate to restore a structure of effective competition on markets where dominance concerns arose and that the Commission committed an error of assessment in accepting them.

      (1)  OJ L 257/90, p. 13


title: Case C-140/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria), lodged on 19 March 2012 — Pensionsversicherungsanstalt v Peter Brey

text:
               9.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria), lodged on 19 March 2012 — Pensionsversicherungsanstalt v Peter Brey
   (Case C-140/12)
   2012/C 165/19
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant on a point of law: Pensionsversicherungsanstalt

      Respondent to the appeal on a point of law: Peter Brey

      Question referred

   Is a compensatory supplement to be regarded as a ‘social assistance’ benefit within the terms contemplated in Article 7(1)(b) of Directive 2004/38/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004?

      (1)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77).


title: Case C-411/04 P: Appeal brought on 23 September 2004 by Mannesmannröhren-Werke AG against the judgment delivered on 8 July 2004 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-44/00 between Mannesmannröhren-Werke AG and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               6.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 273/24

         Appeal brought on 23 September 2004 by Mannesmannröhren-Werke AG against the judgment delivered on 8 July 2004 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-44/00 between Mannesmannröhren-Werke AG and the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-411/04 P)
   (2004/C 273/45)
   An appeal against the judgment delivered on 8 July 2004 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-44/00 between Mannesmannröhren-Werke AG and the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 September 2004 by Mannesmannröhren-Werke AG, represented by Dr. Martin Klusmann und Dr. Frederik Wiemer, Anwälte, of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Freiligrathstraße 1, D-40479 Düsseldorf.
   The appellant claims that the Court should

               1.

               Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 8 July 2004 in Case T-44/00 Mannesmannröhren-Werke AG v Commission of the European Communities, (1) and grant the form of order sought by the applicant in that case, in so far as in that judgment the Court of First Instance dismissed the action for annulment of Commission Decision 2003/382/EC of 8 December 1999 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC.

               2.

               Annul Commission Decision 2003/382/EC of 8 December 1999 in its entirety.

               3.

               In the alternative, reduce as appropriate the level of the fine imposed on the applicant in Article 4 of Decision 2003/382/EC as well as the interest payable during the related legal proceedings and the default interest specified in Article 5 of Decision 2003/382/EC.

               4.

               In the further alternative, refer the dispute back to the Court of First Instance of the European Communities for a fresh judgment in accordance with the legal interpretation of the Court of Justice.

               5.

               Order the defendant to pay the entire costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The appellant raises three pleas in law in support of its appeal for more extensive annulment of the decision:

               1.

               The Court of First Instance offended against the legal principle of fairness in judicial proceedings because it made an error of law in finding that the crucial ‘sharing-key document’ was admissible as inculpatory evidence despite the fact that its authorship, origin and the circumstances in which it was obtained are not known to the applicant at first instance. The applicant would only have been able to defend itself appropriately against the incriminating sharing-key document if it had been in a position not only to make submissions in relation to the content of that document but also in relation to its credibility.

               2.

               The Court of First Instance incorrectly confirmed the infringement of competition law alleged in Article 2 of the contested decision. The defendant did not establish that by concluding the supply contract with Corus in 1993 the applicant reached or implemented a horizontal agreement with Vallourec und Dalmine. No account was taken of the fact that the contract was a non-exclusive supply contract concluded more than two years after other contracts.

               3.

               The Court of First Instance infringed the principle of equal treatment in so far as it did not grant the applicant, in contrast to Vallourec and Dalmine, a reduction in its fine for cooperating in the investigation in accordance with the Notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ 1996 C 207, p. 4). By way of the ‘Becher’ declarations, the applicant made its own contribution to clarifying the facts of the case, which was also acknowledged in the contested decision. Moreover, the applicant did not contest the facts found in the statement of objections. However, the court also failed to take this into account in considering whether the fine should be reduced.

      (1)  OJ C 239 of 25.12.2004.


title: Case C-512/08: Action brought on 25 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/29

         Action brought on 25 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
   (Case C-512/08)
   (2009/C 44/48)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Rozet and E. Traversa, Agents)

      Defendant: French Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that:

                           —

                           by making, pursuant to Article R-332-4 of the Social Security Code, the reimbursement for medical services available at a general practitioner's surgery requiring the use of the extensive material supplies in part II of Article R-712-2 of the Public Health Code, subject to the grant of prior authorisation;

                           —

                           by failing to provide, in Article R-332-4, or in any other provision of French law, for the possibility of granting a patient — insured under the French social security system — additional reimbursement in the circumstances set out in paragraph 53 of the judgment of 12 July 2001 in Case C-368/98 Vanbraekel and Others,

                     the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 of the EC Treaty;

               —

               order the French Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission raises two complaints in support of its action.
   By its first complaint, the Commission contests the requirement — imposed by the defendant — of obtaining prior authorisation in order to receive reimbursement of expenses for certain non-hospital treatment provided in another Member State. While that requirement can be justified where it concerns medical services provided in a hospital, on account of the need to ensure both adequate and permanent access to a balanced range of high-quality hospital treatment, and a control of the costs which that involves, such a requirement seems disproportionate as regards non-hospital services. Several factors are capable of limiting the possible financial impact of abolishing the prior authorisation, such as the option, for the Member States, to determine the scope of the medical cover to which the insured are entitled, or the national conditions for the granting of benefits, provided that they are not discriminatory and do not constitute an obstacle to the free movement of persons.
   By its second complaint, the Commission further objects to the absence, in French law, of a provision allowing the patient — insured under the French social security system — to be granted additional reimbursement in the circumstances set out in paragraph 53 of the judgment of 12 July 2001 in Vanbraekel and Others, that is to say, a reimbursement covering the difference in relation to the amount to which that patient would have been entitled if the hospital treatment had been provided in his own Member State. Consequently, those patients, insured under the French social security system, do not benefit fully from the rights which they are granted under Article 49 EC, as interpreted by the Court of Justice.


title: Case T-520/09: Judgment of the General Court of 10 July 2012 — TF1 and Others v Commission (State aid — Public service broadcasting — Aid intended to be granted by the French Republic to France Télévisions — Budgetary grant for 2009 — Decision not to raise objections — Service of general economic interest — Criterion of proportionality — No serious difficulties)

text:
               18.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 250/12

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 July 2012 — TF1 and Others v Commission
   (Case T-520/09) (1)

   (State aid - Public service broadcasting - Aid intended to be granted by the French Republic to France Télévisions - Budgetary grant for 2009 - Decision not to raise objections - Service of general economic interest - Criterion of proportionality - No serious difficulties)
   2012/C 250/21
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Télévision française 1 (TF1) (Boulogne-Billancourt, France); Métropole télévision (M6) (Neuilly-sur-Seine, France); and Canal + (Issy-les-Moulineaux, France) (represented by: J.P. Hordies and C. Smits, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and D. Grespan, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and J. Gstalter, acting as Agents); and France Télévisions (Paris, France) (represented by: J.P. Gunther and A. Giraud, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 1 September 2009 concerning a budgetary grant in favour of France Télévisions in so far as the Commission raises no objections in that decision regarding a budgetary grant of a maximum amount of EUR 450 million for 2009.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action as unfounded;

               2.

               Orders Télévision française 1 (TF1), Métropole télévision (M6) and Canal + to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and France Télévisions;

               3.

               Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.


title: Case T-114/06: Action brought on  14 April 2006  — GLOBE v Commission

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/48

         Action brought on 14 April 2006 — GLOBE v Commission
   (Case T-114/06)
   (2006/C 131/88)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: GLOBE NV (Zandhoven, Belgium) (represented by: A. Abate, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the European Commission decision contained in the letter of 2 March 2006 from the Procurement Co-ordinator, Directorate D/3 of the EuropeAid Co-operation Office, concerning the project EuropeAid/122078/C/S/Multi, entitled ‘Supply of a Pipeline Network Information System to the Central Asia Gas companies (Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan)’;

               —

               Determine the Commission's non-contractual liability with regard to the adoption of the decision referred to above;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay compensation for the loss caused to the applicant assessed at EUR 492 024,00 plus interest for late payment from the date of the judgment's publication;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant took part in the tendering procedure in respect of the project EuropeAid/122078/C/S/Multi, entitled ‘Innovation to tender for Supply of a Pipeline Network Information System to the Central Asia Gas companies (Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan)’, which is part of the TACIS Programme 2002 (1). By letter of 2 March 2006, the Commission notified the applicant that its tender had been unsuccessful because it was not the lowest and that the contract had been awarded to a competing undertaking. In this action, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision contained in that letter and compensation for the loss which it claims to have sustained as a result of the adoption of the contested decision.
   The applicant relies on a number of pleas to dispute that decision.
   First of all, it submits that in adopting the contested decision the Commission made major errors of assessment and that it contravened the Instructions to tenderers, rendering null and void the award of the contract to the successful tenderer. Under that plea, the applicant contends that the proposal accepted by the Commission does not comply with the technical specifications in the contract documents. It also criticises the Commission for extending the period for the submission of tenders and for having asked the applicant's competitor to change its tender in the light of the Corrigendum to the tender dossier, after the opening of tenders, which allowed the ultimately successful tenderer to amend its tender so as to make it the best offer. The applicant thus alleges a breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations in that its proposal, the least expensive at the opening of tenders, was not ultimately successful.
   Secondly, the applicant claims that by omitting to notify it, before taking the contested decision, of the grounds on which it proposed to change the order of precedence of the tenders set out at the public tender-opening session, the Commission deprived the applicant of the possibility to submit its view and, as a result, infringed its right to be heard.
   The third plea put forward by the applicant relates to the Commission's alleged breach of the duty to give reasons, those provided being, according to the applicant, insufficient and contradictory.
   By its fourth plea, the applicant alleges a breach of the principle of sound administration of justice in that, in its view, the Commission demonstrated negligence in its late communication of the results of the tender selection procedure and in its late replies to various letters from the applicant.

      (1)  Programme founded on Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 99/2000 of 29 December 1999 concerning the provision of assistance to the partner States in Eastern Europe and Central Asia (OJ 2000 L 12, p. 1)


title: Case T-52/11: Action brought on 24 January 2011 — Aecops v Commission

text:
               7.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/20

         Action brought on 24 January 2011 — Aecops v Commission
   (Case T-52/11)
   2011/C 139/38
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: AECOPS — Associação de Empresas de Construção, Obras Públicas e Serviços (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by J. da Cruz Vilaça and L. Pinto Monteiro, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul, in accordance with and for the purpose of Article 263 TFEU, the Commission’s decision of 27 October 2010 relating to file No 89 0979 P3, reducing to PTE 426 070 the amount of the assistance granted by Commission Decision C(89) 0570 of 22 March 1989 and. at the same time, requiring reimbursement of the amount of EUR 14 430;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay both its own costs and those of the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging failure to observe a reasonable time-limit within which to take the decision, as a result of which:

                           —

                           the proceedings are time-barred: the applicant maintains that the contested decision was adopted after the elapse of the period of four years fixed for the limitation of proceedings, as provided for by Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests. Likewise, even if there had been an interruption to the running of the limitation period for the proceedings, twice the limitation period had elapsed without any decision’s having been adopted, in accordance with Article 3(1) of that regulation. The contested decision must be considered unlawful and incapable of being given effect, for the exercise of the corresponding right is time-barred;

                           —

                           breach of the principle of legal certainty: the applicant takes the view that the fact of the Commission’s having let more than 20 years go by between the alleged irregularities and the adoption of the final decision entailed disregard for the principle of legal certainty. That fundamental principle of the legal order of the European Union states that all persons have the right to have the matters concerning them dealt with by the institutions of the Union within a reasonable period;

                           —

                           breach of rights of defence: the applicant claims that its rights of defence have been breached, inasmuch as, seeing that more than 20 years passed between the occurrence of the alleged irregularities and the adoption of the final decision, the applicant was deprived of any chance of submitting its observations in good time, that is to say, at a time when it still held documents that might have enabled it to explain the expenditure considered ineligible by the Commission.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging breach of the duty to state reasons: the applicant argues that the contested decision does not satisfy the obligation to state reasons imposed by Article 296 TFEU. The contested decision does not explain, even summarily, what reasons led to the reduction of the financial assistance granted by the European Social Fund, nor does the letter of the European Social Fund Management Institute notifying the applicant of the contested decision explain, in an even remotely comprehensible manner, the reasons prompting the reduction of that assistance or which expenditure was, and which was not, eligible. In the applicant’s view, the defect of want of reasoning must lead the Court to annul the contested decision.


               10.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/5

         Action brought on 10 July 2013 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
   (Case E-18/13)
   2013/C 294/05
   An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 10 July 2013 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Xavier Lewis, Auður Ýr Steinarsdóttir and Maria Moustakali, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               declare that by failing (i) to adopt, or (ii) to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority forthwith of, all the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 21ar of Annex XX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2001/81/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on national emission ceilings for certain atmospheric pollutants), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the Agreement;

               2.

               order Iceland to bear the costs of these proceedings.

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

               —

               The present application by the EFTA Surveillance Authority addresses Iceland’s failure to comply, no later than 3 December 2012, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 3 October 2012 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Directive 2001/81/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on national emission ceilings for certain atmospheric pollutants (‘the Act’), as referred to at point 21ar of Annex XX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto.

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Iceland has not disputed that there is still delay in implementing Article 2 of the Act and that it has no information before it that could indicate that the Act has been fully implemented. As a result, the EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15 of the Act in conjunction with Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 149/2009, and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to adopt or to notify the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.


title: Removal from the register of T-312/94

text:
No C 181 /22             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      14 . 6 . 97
Action brought on 11 April 1997 by Gregorio Valero                           Commission's decision of 27 December 1996 rejecting
Jordana and Serge Vade against the Commission of the                        the complaint made by the applicant against the
                     European Communities                                    former decision, .
                          ( Case T-l 11 /97)                            — declare that the applicant is entitled to revision of his
                            ( 97/C 181 /45 )                                 initial classification, as requested in his written
                                                                            communication of 30 April 1996,
               (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                        — order the defendant to pay to the applicant the token
An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                             sum of one ecu by way of damages for the non
Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                             material damage which it has caused him,
Instance of the European Communities on 11 April 1997
by Gregorio Valero Jordana, residing in Brussels, and                   — order the defendant to pay all the costs and expenses
Serge Vade, residing in Luxembourg, represented by                           arising from these proceedings .
Carlos Amo Quinones, of the Madrid Bar, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of the said                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Carlos Amo, 2 Rue Gabriel Lippmann .                                    The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
The applicants claim that the Court should:                             Case T-16/97 0 ).
— annul the decision adopted on 27 December 1996                        (') OJ No C 74 , 8 . 3 . 1997, p. 27.
    by the Commission of the European Communities,
    rejecting the applicants' complaints of 13 and
     17 September 1996,
— annul the decisions adopted by the Directorate                                  Removal from the register of T-3 12/94 ( 1 )
     General for Personnel and Administration on 2 June
     1992 ( No 3678 ) and 1 March 1990 ( No 1269 ), albeit                                         ( 97/C 181 /47 )
     only in so far as those decisions appoint the applicants                           (Language of the case: English)
    to Grade 7;
                                                                        By order of 6 March 1997 the President of the Third
— in the alternative, annul the act published in the                    Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First
    Administrative Notices of 18 and 28 June 1996                       Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
    whereby an unspecified administrative body                          removal from the register of Case T-3 12/94 : CEPI
     interpreted the decision adopted by the Commission of              Cartonboard v. Commission of the European
    the European Communities on 7 February 1996 and                     Communities .
    the application of that decision of the Commission to
     Gregorio Valero Jordana,                                           O OJ No C 380, 31 . 12 . 1994 .
— order the Commission of the European Communities
     to pay the costs .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                             Removal from the register of T-l 3 8/96 (')
Case T-l 6/9 7 (').                                                                                ( 97/C 181 /48 )
(') OJ No C 74 , 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.                                                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                        By order of 11 March 1997 the President of the Third
                                                                        Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                        Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Action brought on 21 April 1997 by Miguel Diaz-Llanos                   Case T-138/96 :       Giovanni Ballone Burini v. Court of
La Roche against the Commission of the European                         Justice of the European Communities.
                             Communities
                          ( Case T-124/97 )                             (') OJ No C 318 , 26 . 10 . 1996 .
                            ( 97/C 181 /46 )
               (Language of the case: Spanish)
An action against the Commission of the European                                   Removal from the register of T-l 6 1/96 ( ] )
Communities was brought before the Court of First                                                  ( 97/C 181 /49 )
Instance of the European Communities on 21 April 1997
by Miguel Diaz-Llanos La Roche, residing in Brussels,                                    (Language of the case: French)
represented by Edmundo Angulo Rodriguez, of the                         By order of 18 March 1997 the President of the First
Madrid Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg                   Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
care of Consuelo Perez Anaya, 24 Rue Marguerite de                      Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Brabant .                                                               Case T-161 /96 : Gundolf Bosetti v. Commission of the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             European Communities .
— annul the decision adopted by the Commission, as
                                                                        (') OJ No C 370, 7. 12 . 1996 .
     appointing authority, on 14 June 1996 , by which it
     decided not to reclassify the applicant in step, and the


title: Case T-307/13: Action brought on 4 June 2013 — Capella v OHIM — Oribay Mirror Buttons (ORIBAY)

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/54

         Action brought on 4 June 2013 — Capella v OHIM — Oribay Mirror Buttons (ORIBAY)
   (Case T-307/13)
   2013/C 207/90
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Capella EOOD (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: M. Holtorf, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Oribay Mirror Buttons, SL (San Sebastián, Spain)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 March 2013 in Case R 164/2012-4;

               —

               Declare revoked the registration of Community trade mark 003611282 ‘ORIBAY ORIginal Buttons for Automotive Yndustry’ for the following goods and services:

                           —

                           Class 12: Vehicles and parts for vehicles not included in other classes, with the exception of parts for vehicle windows and windscreens; and

                           —

                           Class 37: Repair; repair and maintenance

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings including the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: figurative mark, which contains the word elements ‘ORIBAY ORIginal Buttons for Automotive Yndustry, for goods and services in Classes 12, 37 and 40 — Community trade mark No 3 611 282

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Oribay Mirror Buttons, SL

      Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: The application for revocation was partially upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was upheld and the application for revocation completely rejected

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009, infringement of Article 56 of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Rule 37(a)(iii) of Regulation No 2868/95 and infringement of Article 57(2) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 January 2005 in Case C-175/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden in F.J. Pape v Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij (State aid — Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty (now Article 88(3) EC) — Planned aid — Prohibition on the implementation of planned measures before the Commission's final decision — Tax partly earmarked for financing the aid measure — Tax imposed before approval of the aid)

text:
               5.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 57/4

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 13 January 2005
   in Case C-175/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden in F.J. Pape v Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij (1)

   (State aid - Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty (now Article 88(3) EC) - Planned aid - Prohibition on the implementation of planned measures before the Commission's final decision - Tax partly earmarked for financing the aid measure - Tax imposed before approval of the aid)
   (2005/C 57/06)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case C-175/02: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands), made by decision of 8 March 2002, received at the Court on 13 May 2002, in the proceedings between F.J. Pape and Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij – the Court: (First Chamber) composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, A. Rosas, K. Lenaerts, S. von Bahr and K. Schiemann (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 13 January 2005, in which it ruled:
   The prohibition on implementation laid down in the last sentence of Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty (now the last sentence of Article 88(3) EC) cannot apply to a tax if that tax, or a certain part of the revenue from it, is not hypothecated to the financing of an aid measure.

      (1)  OJ C 169 of 13.07.2002.


title: Case C-4/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Employment Tribunal, West Croydon (United Kingdom), by order of that court of 5 January 2001, in the case of Ms S.G. Martin, Mr R.K.A. Daby and Mr B.J. Willis against South Bank University

text:
24.2.2001               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 61/7
—     Manifest error of fact and law, distortion, contradiction,         2.   Is the employees’ entitlement to the payment of early
      insufficient statement of reasons and infringement of                   superannuation benefits and lump sum compensation on
      Article 176 of the EC Treaty: the Court of First Instance               redundancy/in the interests of the efficiency of the
      quite simply obliterated the findings in its two earlier                service/on organisational change, a right to an old age,
      judgments (2) and even accepted, theoretically, the expla-              invalidity or survivors’ benefit within the meaning of
      nation offered by the Commission at the hearing that, by                Article 3.3 of the Directive?
      referring in their letter of 1 July 1987 to a ‘quid pro quo’
      consisting in their refusal to authorise other makes of
      Japanese car, the French authorities simply ‘meant to
      make the policy they [were implementing] more palat-               3.   If and to the extent that the answer to question 2 is ‘no’,
      able’, a policy that finds no basis in any regulation or law            is there an obligation on the transferor arising from the
      authorising the exertion of irresistible pressure                       contract of employment, the employment relationship or
      accompanied by threats. That was a mere expedient. It                   the collective agreement within the meaning of Article
      was a distortion of a clear text, already correctly analysed            3.1 and/or 3.2 which transfers by reason of the transfer
      in the previous judgments, to find, in vague terms, to                  of the undertaking and renders the transferee liable to
      the contrary, that the Commission’s ‘explanation’ could                 pay the benefits to the employee upon dismissal?
      ‘reasonably be accepted’. It would not appear to matter
      that, for this manifest misappraisal of the legal import of
      the facts, the Court of First Instance had to distort the          4.   If the answers to questions 2 and 3 are ‘no’ and ‘yes’
      meaning of terms whose sense is had to misconstrue,                     respectively, may the employee, nonetheless, agree to
      such as ‘arrangement’, ‘quid pro quo’, undertaking, ‘reas-              forego his/her entitlement to early, payment of pension
      sessment of the system or commercial choice’.                           and retirement lump sum and/or the annual allowance
                                                                              and lump sum compensation in circumstances where the
                                                                              transferee’s pension scheme does not entitle him or her
(1) In Case T-154/98, OJ C 358 of 21 November 1998, p. 22.                    to the same benefits and the same circumstances or at all,
(2) The judgments in Cases T-7/92 [1993] ECR II-669, and T-387/94             and he/she
    [1996] ECR II-961.
                                                                              (i)   becomes a member of the transferee’s pension
                                                                                scheme; makes contributions to it and/or has contri-
                                                                                butions made to it on his/her behalf by the transferee
                                                                                employer;
                                                                              (ii) becomes a member of the transferee’s pension
                                                                                scheme, makes contributions to it and has contri-
                                                                                butions made to it on his/her behalf by the transferee
                                                                                employer and successfully applies to transfer his/her
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Employment                                accrued benefits from the transferor’s pension
Tribunal, West Croydon (United Kingdom), by order of                                scheme into the transferee’s pension scheme?
that court of 5 January 2001, in the case of Ms S.G. Martin,
Mr R.K.A. Daby and Mr B.J. Willis against South Bank
                             University
                                                                         5.   If so, what are the criteria by which the national
                                                                              court should decide whether, in such circumstances, the
                           (Case C-4/01)                                      employee has agreed?
                          (2001/C 61/13)
                                                                         6.   Are Articles 3.1 and/or 3.2 of the Directive to be
                                                                              interpreted as precluding the transferee from offering
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        transferred employees the option of taking early retire-
European Communities by an order of the Employment                            ment on the basis of early retirement benefits that are less
Tribunal, West Croydon (United Kingdom) of 5 January 2001,                    beneficial than those to which they are entitled as a
which was received at the Court Registry on 8 January 2001,                   consequence of the effect of the Directive?
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ms S.G. Martin, Mr
R.K.A. Daby and Mr B.J. Willis against South Bank University,
on the following questions:                                              7.   Is the answer to the foregoing question affected if, when
                                                                              offering transferred employees the option of taking early
1.    Do rights which are contingent upon either dismissal or                 retirement on terms less beneficial than those to which
      premature retirement by agreement with the employer                     they are entitled under the Directive, the transferee states
      fall within the definition of ‘rights and obligations’ within           that no early retirement benefits will be available in
      the meaning of Article 3.1 of the Directive (1)?                        future?
 ---pagebreak--- C 61/8                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       24.2.2001
8.    Where the parties have agreed that the employee will                Pleas in law and main arguments
      take premature retirement on the terms offered by the
      employer, what criteria should the national court apply             —     Distortion of the notion of aid as referred to in Article
      in determining whether the transfer of the undertaking is                 4(c) CS and in the steel aids code — manifest error of
      the reason for that agreement in accordance with the                      assessment: Cockerill Sambre has not derived any benefit
      principle enunciated by the Court in Foreningen af                        from the intervention of the Federal and Walloon auth-
      Arbeidsledre-v-Daddy’s Dance Hall, Case 324/86 (2)?                       orities in the implementation of the plan for the reduction
                                                                                of working time, since not only was the company under
                                                                                no legal obligation to pay remuneration for the 34 hours
9.    If the effect of Article 3 of the Directive is to preclude the            worked at the level payable for 37 hours but, in addition,
      transferee from offering transferred employees the option                 the collective working agreement of 17 April 1998
      of taking early retirement on the basis of early retirement               contained no commitment on the part of the company
      benefits that are less beneficial than those to which they                to maintain the. remuneration of those workers affected
      are entitled under the effect of the Directive, what are the              by the reduction in working time.
      consequences for employees who accept early retirement
      on the basis offered to them by the employer?                             Consequently, the transitional increment which the
                                                                                Region of Wallonia has undertaken to pay does not
                                                                                constitute operating costs of the company. That tran-
                                                                                sitional increment is not intended to constitute remuner-
(1) Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the                     ation for work done by the workers affected by the
    approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the              reduction in working time but to compensate for the
    safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers                 financial efforts which they have themselves proposed to
    of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses (OJ L 61,                make with a view to the creation of 150 jobs for young
    05.03.1977, p. 26).                                                         workers.
(2) ECR 1988 p. 739.
                                                                                The reduction in social contributions agreed to by the
                                                                                Federal authorities confers no economic advantage on
                                                                                Cockerill Sambre. The overall number of hours worked
                                                                                within the company has not been altered in response to
                                                                                the plan for the reduction in working time accompanied
                                                                                by the compensatory engagement of 150 young workers.
                                                                                The same number of hours are worked for the company,
                                                                                at the same cost to the company.
                                                                          —     Failure to take account of the notion of a beneficiary: the
                                                                                interventions by the public authorities constitute aid in
                                                                                favour of the Cockerill Sambre workers affected by the
Action brought on 8 January 2001 by the Kingdom
                                                                                scaling-down, and not aid in favour of Cockerill Sambre.
of Belgium against the Commission of the European
                                                                                The fact that aid is granted to workers in their capacity as
                           Communities
                                                                                employees of a specific undertaking does not, as such,
                                                                                preclude it from being categorised as aid to individuals.
                           (Case C-5/01)                                  —     Non-compliance with the procedure laid down by the
                                                                                steel aids code - Lack of competence: the fact that the
                                                                                three-month time-limit prescribed by Article 6(5) has not
                          (2001/C 61/14)                                        been complied with means that the Commission is not
                                                                                competent to decide whether a measure constitutes aid
                                                                                incompatible with the steel aids code.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European              —     Failure to fulfil the obligation to provide a statement of
Communities on 8 January 2001 by the Kingdom of Belgium,                        reasons.
represented by A. Snoecx, acting as Agent, assisted by J.M. De
Backer, G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers, with an address             —     (In the alternative) Infringement of Article 95 CS: the
for service in Luxembourg.                                                      intervention measures are not intended artificially to
                                                                                maintain jobs in an undertaking which has no commercial
                                                                                or financial viability; instead, they are designed to attain a
                                                                                social objective which is, moreover, championed by the
The Kingdom of Belgium claims that the Court should:                            European Community, namely progress towards the
                                                                                achievement of full employment by means of the redistri-
                                                                                bution of work. In those circumstances, the Commission
—     annul the Commission’s decision of 15 November 2000                       has committed a manifest and obvious error of assess-
      (No C 76/1999) entitled ‘State aid granted by Belgium in                  ment by refusing, on an exceptional basis, to authorise
      favour of the steel undertaking Cockerill Sambre S.A.’;                   the measures in issue under Article 95 CS.
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-229/05 P: Appeal brought on 18 May 2005 by Osman Ocalan, on behalf of the Kurdistan Worker's Party (PKK) and Serif Vanley, on behalf of the Kurdistan National Congress (KNK) against the order made on 15 February 2005 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-229/02, between Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) and Kurdistan National Congress (KNK) and the Council of the European Union, supported by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and by the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               1.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/2

         Appeal brought on 18 May 2005 by Osman Ocalan, on behalf of the Kurdistan Worker's Party (PKK) and Serif Vanley, on behalf of the Kurdistan National Congress (KNK) against the order made on 15 February 2005 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-229/02, between Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) and Kurdistan National Congress (KNK) and the Council of the European Union, supported by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and by the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-229/05 P)
   (2005/C 243/04)
   Language of the case: English
   An appeal against the order made on 15 February 2005 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-229/02 (1), between the Kurdistan Worker's Party (PKK) and the Kurdistan National Congress (KNK) and the Council of the European Union, supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and by the Commission of the European Union, was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 18 May 2005 by Osman Ocalan, on behalf of the Kurdistan Worker's Party (PKK) and Serif Vanley, on behalf of the Kurdistan National Congress, established in Brussels, Belgium, represented by M. Muller and E. Grieves, barristers, instructed by J.G. Pierce, solicitor.
   The Appellants claim that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that the Application of Osman Ocalan on behalf of the organisation formerly known as the PKK is admissible;

               2.

               declare that the Application of Serif Vanly on behalf of the organisation known as the KNK is admissible;

               3.

               make an order for costs relating to the admissibility proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The First Applicant appeals the Ruling on the following grounds:
   It is submitted that the ruling is erroneous as the Court of First Instance had already accepted that the first applicant existed and had the requisite capacity to institute proceedings, nominate legal representatives, and respond to pleadings. On the face of the papers the first applicant's power of attorney plainly complied with Article 44 of the rules of procedure of the Court of First Instance governing such powers. The said power was neither contested by the defendant nor the Court when it communicated the application to the defendant in accordance with the normal rules governing receipt of a valid power of attorney.
   The defendant's objection relating to capacity due to alleged PKK dissolution is contrary to Article 114(1) (formerly Article 91) of the rules of procedure as it goes to the substance of the application. In short, the objection should not have been considered or dealt with at the admissibility stage.
   Likewise, the Court's ruling on capacity, arising out of a provisional construction of the first applicant's case concerning dissolution, constituted an irregular de facto ruling upon a matter of substance which should not have been made at this state of proceedings. Such a ruling contradicts the Court's injunction that the ‘reality of PKK's existence’ was a matter of substance not to be examined at the admissibility stage.
   The Court's construction of the first applicant's case on dissolution is wholly misplaced in any event. A close reading of Mr Ocalan's statement does not confirm that the PKK had dissolved for all purposes, including the purpose of challenging proscription.
   Even if the Court was correct in construing the first applicant's case as conclusively resting upon an unreserved assertion of dissolution, it is submitted that the issue of residual rights, including the right to an effective remedy to challenge proscription, remained live as a matter of substance which should have been dealt with at a later stage.
   It is also submitted that the Court's criteria concerning admissibility, including ‘capacity’ and the test regarding ‘individual and direct concern’, is far too restrictive in cases concerning the operation of fundamental freedoms. In particular, the narrow and restrictive criteria applied by the Court breach Articles 6, 13 and 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights and related jurisprudence concerning locus standi.
   Further, irrespective of the test to be applied, it is oppressive, disproportionate and contrary to the rules of natural justice for a court to completely shut out an applicant asserting a breach of fundamental rights solely upon a provisional construction of the applicant's case.
   The Second Applicant submits that:
   The Court of First Instance erred in its application of the admissibility criteria and in relying upon an assumption that the PKK no longer exists, thereby assuming a substantive issue in order to defeat the claim on admissibility.

      (1)  OJ C 143, 11.06.2005, p. 34


title: Case T-556/13: Action brought on 22 October 2013 — Verband der Kölnisch-Wasser Hersteller, Köln v OHIM (Original Eau de Cologne)

text:
               14.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 367/37

         Action brought on 22 October 2013 — Verband der Kölnisch-Wasser Hersteller, Köln v OHIM (Original Eau de Cologne)
   (Case T-556/13)
   2013/C 367/66
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Verband der Kölnisch-Wasser Hersteller, Köln eV (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: T. Schulte-Beckhausen, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 August 2013 (Case R 2064/2012-4);

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs including those incurred in the appeal proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Original Eau de Cologne’ for goods in Class 3 — Community trade mark application No 10 787 794

      Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009


title: Case F-3/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 31 March 2014  — CK v Commission

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/64

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 31 March 2014 — CK v Commission
   (Case F-3/13) (1)

   2014/C 421/95
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 4.5.2013, p. 31.


title: Case C-410/06: Action brought on 9 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/33

         Action brought on 9 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-410/06)
   (2006/C 294/58)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: N. Yerrell and G. Braga da Cruz, Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               a declaration that, by failing to adopt (all) the laws, regulations and legislative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/15/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 on the organisation of the working time of persons performing mobile road transport activities or, in any event, by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14 of that directive;

               —

               an order that the Portuguese Republic should pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposition of the directive into national law expired on 23 March 2005.

      (1)  OJ L 80. p. 35.


title: Case F-86/06: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 26 July 2010 — Vereecken v Commission

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/76

      Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 26 July 2010 — Vereecken v Commission
      (Case F-86/06) (1)

      ()
      (2010/C 288/145)
      Language of the case: French
      The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 237, 30.9.2006, p. 19.


title: Case C-231/10: Order of the President of the Court of 26 October 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/32

         Order of the President of the Court of 26 October 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia
   (Case C-231/10) (1)

   ()
   2011/C 30/56
   Language of the case: Estonian
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 179, 3.7.2010.


title: Case C-404/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 29 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 — Organic production of agricultural products — Private inspection bodies — Requirement of an establishment or permanent infrastructure in the Member State where the services are provided — Justifications — Connection with the exercise of official authority — Article 55 EC — Consumer protection)

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/4

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 29 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-404/05) (1)

   (Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 - Organic production of agricultural products - Private inspection bodies - Requirement of an establishment or permanent infrastructure in the Member State where the services are provided - Justifications - Connection with the exercise of official authority - Article 55 EC - Consumer protection)
   (2008/C 22/06)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Traversa and G. Braun, Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and C.Schulze-Bahr, Agents)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 49 EC — Freedom to provide services — Requirement for inspection bodies in the field of organic production of agricultural products which are approved in another Member State to have a place of business or permanent infrastructure in Germany
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by requiring of private inspection bodies of organically-farmed products approved in another Member State that they maintain an establishment in Germany in order to be able to provide inspection services there, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC;

               2.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 10 of 14.1.2006.


title: Case C-410/10: Action brought on 17 August 2010 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/23

      Action brought on 17 August 2010 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
      (Case C-410/10)
      ()
      (2010/C 288/39)
      Language of the case: Greek

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Karanasou Apostolopoulou and G. Braun)

         Defendant: Hellenic Republic

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the exercise of certain rights of shareholders in listed companies, or in any event by not notifying those provisions to the Commission, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

                  —

                  order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The time-limit for transposition of Directive 2007/36 into domestic law expired on 3 August 2009.


title: Case C-620/10: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 May 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kammarrätten i Stockholm — Migrationsöverdomstolen — Sweden) — Migrationsverket v Nurije Kastrati, Valdrina Kastrati, Valdrin Kastrati (Dublin system — Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 — Procedure for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application — Third-country nationals in possession of a valid visa issued by the ‘Member State responsible’ within the meaning of Regulation No 343/2003 — Asylum application lodged in a Member State other than the State responsible pursuant to that regulation — Application for a residence permit in a Member State other than the State responsible followed by the withdrawal of the asylum application — Withdrawal occurring before the Member State responsible accepted that it should take charge — Withdrawal terminating the procedures set up by Regulation No 343/2003)

text:
               16.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 174/11

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 May 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kammarrätten i Stockholm — Migrationsöverdomstolen — Sweden) — Migrationsverket v Nurije Kastrati, Valdrina Kastrati, Valdrin Kastrati
   (Case C-620/10) (1)

   (Dublin system - Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 - Procedure for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application - Third-country nationals in possession of a valid visa issued by the ‘Member State responsible’ within the meaning of Regulation No 343/2003 - Asylum application lodged in a Member State other than the State responsible pursuant to that regulation - Application for a residence permit in a Member State other than the State responsible followed by the withdrawal of the asylum application - Withdrawal occurring before the Member State responsible accepted that it should take charge - Withdrawal terminating the procedures set up by Regulation No 343/2003)
   2012/C 174/14
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Kammarrätten i Stockholm — Migrationsöverdomstolen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Migrationsverket

      Defendants: Nurije Kastrati, Valdrina Kastrati, Valdrin Kastrati

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Kammarrätten i Stockholm — Migrationsöverdomstolen — Interpretation of the second subparagraph of Article 4(5), Article 5(2) and Article 16(3) and (4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national (OJ 2003 L 50, p. 1) — Conditions for application of the regulation in the case of the withdrawal of an asylum application — Withdrawal of asylum applications made by third-country nationals in a Member State A during the procedure for the determination of the Member State responsible for examining the application under that regulation and following agreement by a Member State B to take charge of the applicants — Decision by the competent authority in Member State A to reject the applications for asylum and to set in train the procedure for the transfer of the applicants to Member State B, regardless of the fact that the asylum applications made in Member State A have been withdrawn

      Operative part of the judgment

   Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national must be interpreted as meaning that the withdrawal of an application for asylum within the terms of Article 2(c) of that regulation, which occurs before the Member State responsible for examining that application has agreed to take charge of the applicant, has the effect that that regulation can no longer be applicable. In such a case, it is for the Member State within the territory of which the application was lodged to take the decisions required as a result of that withdrawal and, in particular, to discontinue the examination of the application, with a record of the information relating to it being placed in the applicant’s file.

      (1)  OJ C 72, 5.3.2011.