title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 March 1999 in Case T-138/94: COCKERILL-SAMBRE SA v. Commission of the European Communities (ECSC Treaty - Competition - Agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices - Price-fixing - Market sharing - Systems for the exchange of information)

text:
5.6.1999                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 160/13
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                          of 11 March 1999                                                             of 11 March 1999
in Case T-137/94: ARBED SA v. Commission of the                               in Case T-138/94: COCKERILL-SAMBRE SA v. Com-
                    European Communities (1)                                              mission of the European Communities (1)
(ECSC Treaty — Competition — Agreements between                               (ECSC Treaty — Competition — Agreements between
undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and                   undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and
concerted practices — Price-fixing — Market sharing —                         concerted practices — Price-fixing — Market sharing —
            Systems for the exchange of information)                                      Systems for the exchange of information)
                           (1999/C 160/25)                                                              (1999/C 160/26)
                     (Language of the case: French)                                                (Language of the case: French)
In case T-137/94: ARBED SA, having its registered office in                   In case T-138/94: Cockerill-Sambre SA, having its registered
Luxembourg, represented by Alexandre Vandencasteele, of the                   office in Luxembourg, represented by Alexandre Vandencastee-
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                le, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxem-
Chambers of Paul Ehmann, 19, avenue de la Liberté, v.                         bourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8-10, rue Mathias
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: initially                     Hardt, v. Commission of the European Communities, (Agents:
Julian Currall and Géraud Sajust de Bergues, and subsequently                 initially Julian Currall and Géraud Sajust de Bergues, and
Jean-Louis Dewost, Julian Currall and Guy Charrier, assisted                  subsequently Jean-Louis Dewost, Julian Currall and Guy Charri-
by Jean-Yves Art) — application, principally, for the annulment               er, assisted by Jean-Yves Art) — application, principally, for
of Commission Decision 94/215/ECSC of 16 February 1994                        the annulment of Commission Decision 94/215/ECSC of
relating to a proceeding pursuant to article 65 of the ECSC                   16 February 1994 relating to a proceeding pursuant to article
Treaty concerning agreements and concerted practices engaged                  65 of the ECSC Treaty concerning agreements and concerted
in by European producers of beams (OJ L 116, 6.5.1994, p. 1)                  practices engaged in by European producers of beams (OJ
— the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended                       L 116, 6.5.1994, p. 1) — the Court of First Instance
Composition), composed of: C. W. Bellamy, acting as President,                (Second Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of:
A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges; J. Palacio González, Adminis-             C. W. Bellamy, acting as President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung,
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 March                   Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar,
1999, in which it:                                                            has given a judgment on 11 March 1999, in which it:
1. annuls article 1 of Commission Decision 94/215/ECSC of                     1. annuls article 1 of Commission Decision 94/215/ECSC of
     16 February 1994 relating to a proceeding pursuant to article                 16 February 1994 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article
     65 of the ECSC Treaty concerning agreements and concerted                     65 of the ECSC Treaty concerning agreements and concerted
     practices engaged in by European producers of beams in so far as              practices engaged in by European producers of beams in so far as
     it holds the applicant liable for the participation by its subsidiary         it finds that the applicant participated in an agreement to share
     TradeARBED in an agreement to share the Italian market which                  the Italian market which lasted three months and in price-fixing
     lasted three months,                                                          on the Danish market for the period from 1 July to 3 November
                                                                                1988,
2. fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by article 4
     of Decision 94/215/ECSC at EUR 10 000 000,                               2. fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by article 4
                                                                                of Decision 94/215/ECSC at EUR 3 580 000,
3. dismisses the remainder of the action,
                                                                              3. dismisses the remainder of the action,
4. orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay four fifths
     of the defendant’s costs. The defendant shall bear one fifth of its      4. orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay four fifths
     own costs.                                                                    of the defendant’s costs. The defendant shall bear one fifth of its
                                                                                own costs.
(1) OJ C 146, 28.5.1994.                                                      (1) OJ C 146, 28.5.1994.


title: Case T-148/06: Order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 22 May 2007 — Marie Claire v OHIM — Marie Claire Album (MARIE CLAIRE)

text:
               7.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/42

         Order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 22 May 2007 — Marie Claire v OHIM — Marie Claire Album (MARIE CLAIRE)
   (Case T-148/06) (1)

   (2007/C 155/77)

      Language of the case: Spanish

   The President of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 190, 12.8.2006.


title: Case T-292/10: Order of the General Court of 16 July 2014  — Monty Program v Commission

text:
               22.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 329/24

         Order of the General Court of 16 July 2014 — Monty Program v Commission
   (Case T-292/10) (1)

   2014/C 329/34
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 25.9.2010.


title: Action brought on 8 October 1995 by Giovanni Sergio against Commission of the European Communities (Case T-185/95)

text:
No C 333/ 18          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     9 . 12 . 95
have been paid for already by the sums paid during the               publication, the general implementing provisions applicable
course of the contract and that therefore nothing further            did not provide that the abovementioned six-month period
was due to the undertaking.                                          had to be complied with 'on pain of a request being declared
                                                                     time-barred '.
The legal representative of the undertaking then wrote to the
authorities of the Centre, making counter-allegations highly         The applicant based the request giving rise to the contested
insulting to the applicant. At the same time the applicant           decision on, first, the fact that he had been unable to comply
received a great many anonymous telephone calls which                with the six-month period laid down by the general
openly threatened him and his family .                               implementing provisions because he was on leave on
                                                                     personal grounds when the agreement with the Italian
The applicant perceived that those facts constituted the             authority was published and, second, the fact that he had
situation envisaged by the first subparagraph of Article 24          not been informed before 15 March 1994 , the date on which
of the Staff Regulations and on 28 July 1994 he submitted            the judgment in Case T- 100/92 La Pietra was delivered, that
a request to the appointing authority for the assistance             this period allowed account to be taken of circumstances
provided for in such circumstances. The appointing                   excusing delay in making a request other than force
authority has made no reply to that request.                         majeure .
                                                                     The applicant first of all contends that it was open to the
                                                                     Commission to notify its officials of the agreement in
                                                                     question through the medium of the Administrative Notices
                                                                     as well as through the Official Journal of the European
Action brought on 8 October 1995 by Giovanni Sergio                  Communities. In view of the fact that the defendant chose
     against Commission of the European Communities                  the former option, the applicant cannot then be deemed to
                       ( Case T-185 /95 )                            have been aware of the texts thus published, with the result
                                                                     that the time-limit provided for by the general implementing
                         ( 95/C 333/34 )                             provisions and the dies a quo resulting from the publication
                                                                     of the agreement or from his reinstatement in his post after
                (Language of the case: French)                       leave on personal grounds can operate against him only
                                                                     from the date on which he became aware of them .
An action against the Commission of the European                     Furthermore, as follows from the judgment in Case T-70/91
Communities was brought before the Court of First                    Moretto, it is now established that a failure to comply with
Instance of the European Communities on 8 October 1995               the six-month period may be justified by facts, other than
by Giovanni Sergio, residing in Brussels ( Belgium ),                force majeure, which are not attributable to fault on the part
                                                                     of the official concerned .
represented by Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liege Bar.
                                                                     Finally, the applicant claims that he cannot be deemed to
The applicant claims that the Court should :                         have been aware of the judgment in Moretto on the date of
                                                                     its delivery or of its publication in the European Court
— annul the Commission decision 7 July 1994 ,                        Reports, since the Commission has the duty to inform its
                                                                     staff of the consequences of judgments having particular
— recognize the applicant's option, under Article 11 ( 2 ) of        significance for Community officials .
     Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, to transfer pension
     rights acquired in Italy from 22 November 1961 to
     21 November 1964 in respect of his service with the
     authorities of the Commune of Cutro,
— order the defendant to pay the costs .
                                                                            Action brought on 6 October 1995 by Marco
Pleas in law and main arguments:                                         Mazzocchi-Alemanni against the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
The applicant, an official working with the Commission,
                                                                                ( Case T- 186/95 )
 contests the refusal to grant his request for the transfer of
 pension rights which he had acquired prior to his                                             ( 95/C 333/35 )
 appointment, when he was working in Italy.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
 Pursuant to Article 11 ( 2 ) of Annex VIII to the Staff
 Regulations, the Commission adopted a number of general
 implementing provisions, which laid down a six-month                 An action against the Commission of the European
 period within which such a transfer had to be requested; at          Communities was brought before the Court of First
 the time when agreement was reached with the competent               Instance of the European Communities on 6 October 1995
 Italian authority which made this transfer possible, the             by Marco Mazzocchi-Alemanni, residing in Libreville
 applicant was on leave on personal grounds and was                   ( Gabon ), represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar,
 therefore unable to be aware of this. This agreement was             with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
 published in the Administrative Notices. At the time of this         Fiduciaire Myson S.ar.l., 1 Rue Glesener.


title: Case T-560/11: Action brought on 28 October 2011 — Kronofrance and Kronoply v Commission

text:
               14.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/17

         Action brought on 28 October 2011 — Kronofrance and Kronoply v Commission
   (Case T-560/11)
   2012/C 13/37
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Kronofrance SAS (Sully sur Loire, France), Kronoply GmbH (Heiligengrabe, Germany) (represented by: R. Nierer and L. Gordalla, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission’s decision of 23 March 2011 (C 28/2005), which declared the State aid that Germany had implemented in favour of Glunz AG and OSB Deutschland GmbH, in the amount of EUR 69 797 988, to be compatible with the internal market within the meaning of Article 107(3)(a) TFEU;

               —

               order the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the applicants’ costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the TFEU Treaty or the EC Treaty or of a rule of law which has to be applied when it is implemented
               In the first plea the applicants submit that the Commission did not comply with the rules in the Multisectoral framework on regional aid for large investment projects (OJ 1998 C 107, p. 7) (‘the Multisectoral framework’) in that it

                           —

                           did not determine a maximum allowable aid intensity as required, in the applicants’ opinion, by point 3.1 of the Multisectoral framework;

                           —

                           established the annual growth rates for chipboards in accordance with point 7.8 of the Multisectoral framework on the basis of incorrect periods and thus arrived at an excessively high competition factor;

                           —

                           combined different competition factors in respect of the same project and therefore departed from the legal framework of point 3.10 of the Multisectoral framework.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging misuse of powers
               In the second plea the applicants submit that the Commission misused its powers in assessing the aid as it did not adhere to the requirements which it itself had established.


title: Case T-729/15 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 20 July 2016 — MSD Animal Health Innovation and Intervet international v EMA (Application for interim measures — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents held by the EMA concerning information submitted by an undertaking as part of its application for authorisation to place a medicinal product on the market — Decision to grant a third party access to the documents — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Urgency — Prima facie case — Weighing up of interests)

text:
               12.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 335/48

         Order of the President of the General Court of 20 July 2016 — MSD Animal Health Innovation and Intervet international v EMA
   (Case T-729/15 R)
   ((Application for interim measures - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents held by the EMA concerning information submitted by an undertaking as part of its application for authorisation to place a medicinal product on the market - Decision to grant a third party access to the documents - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Urgency - Prima facie case - Weighing up of interests))
   (2016/C 335/63)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: MSD Animal Health Innovation GmbH (Schwabenheim, Germany) and Intervet international BV (Boxmeer, Netherlands) (represented by: P. Bogaert, lawyer, B. Kelly and H. Billson, Solicitors, J. Stratford QC, and C. Thomas, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Medicines Agency (EMA) (represented by: T. Jabłoński, N. Rampal Olmedo, A. Spina, A. Rusanov and S. Marino, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU, in essence, for the suspension of operation of Decision EMA/785809/2015 of the EMA of 25 November 2015, granting to a third party, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43), access to certain documents containing information submitted in the context of an application for marketing authorisation for the veterinary medicinal product Bravecto.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The operation of Decision EMA/785809/2015 of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) of 25 November 2015 is suspended, in so far as that decision grants a third party access, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, to toxicity study reports C 45151/28-day dermal (6 hours semi-occlusive) toxicity study in wistar rats, C 45162/28-day oral (gavage) toxicity study in wistar rats, and C 88913/28-day dermal (6 hours semi-occlusive) toxicity study in wistar rats..

               2.

               The EMA shall not disclose the reports mentioned in point 1.

               3.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case F-12/07: Action brought on 26 February 2007 — O'Connor v Commission

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/57

         Action brought on 26 February 2007 — O'Connor v Commission
   (Case F-12/07)
   (2007/C 95/115)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Elizabeth O'Connor (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the Commission's decision to set at 11 months and 25 days the maximum period for the award of an unemployment allowance to the applicant;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, a former member of the Commission's temporary staff, worked for the latter continuously from 16 January 2001 to 31 December 2005 under six different fixed-term contracts concluded in the following order: a first contract as a member of the temporary staff, a first contract as a member of the auxiliary staff, a second contract as a member of the temporary staff, a second contract as a member of the auxiliary staff, a third contract as a member of the temporary staff and, finally, a contract as a member of the contract staff.
   The administration granted her entitlement to the unemployment allowance for a maximum period of 11 months and 25 days, in so far as it held that the periods covered by the auxiliary staff contracts should be treated as periods spent in the service of an employer other than the Community institutions.
   In support of her action, the applicant submits, first, that the Commission committed an abuse of rights by retaining her in its service more than five years under a variety of fixed-term contracts and under different sets of staff regulations. Secondly, she submits that the Commission misapplied Article 28a(4) and Article 96(4) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, in so far as the period during which the applicant worked as a member of the auxiliary staff was not taken into account for the purposes of their provisions.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 January 2001 in Case C-76/99: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Sixth VAT Directive — Article 13(A)(1)(b) — Closely related activities — Concept)

text:
19.5.2001               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 150/3
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                         (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 11 January 2001
                        of 11 January 2001
                                                                           in Case C-76/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v French Republic (1)
in Case C-247/98: Hellenic Republic v Commission of the
                   European Communities (1)                                (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Sixth
                                                                           VAT Directive — Article 13(A)(1)(b) — Closely related
                                                                                activities — Concept)
 (EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1994 financial year)
                                                                                (2001/C 150/05)
                          (2001/C 150/04)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                    (Language of the case: Greek)                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           In Case C-76/99: Commission of the European Communities
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     (Agents: E. Traversa, assisted by N. Coutrelis) v French Republic
                   in the European Court Reports)                          (Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and S. Seam) — application for a
                                                                           declaration that, by levying value added tax on fixed allowances
                                                                           for the taking of samples for medical analysis, the French
                                                                           Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
In Case C-247/98: Hellenic Republic (Agents: D. Papageorgo-                Article 13(A)(1)(b) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of
poulos, and I. Chalkias) v Commission of the European                      17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member
Communities (Agents: M. Condou-Durande) — application for                  States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value
the partial annulment of Commission Decision 98/358/EC of                  added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1)
6 May 1998 on the clearance of the accounts presented by the               — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris,
Member States in respect of the expenditure for 1994 of the                President of the Second Chamber, acting for the President of
Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and                the Sixth Chamber, R. Schintgen and F. Macken (Rapporteur),
Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 1998 L 163, p. 28) in the part                  Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,
of that decision concerning the Hellenic Republic — the Court              Head of Division, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
(Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the                 11 January 2001, in which it:
Chamber, V. Skouris, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen (Rapporte-
ur) and F. Macken, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General;
H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given           1.    Declares that, by levying value added tax on fixed allowances
a judgment on 11 January 2001, in which it:                                      for the transmission of samples for the purpose of medical
                                                                                analysis, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                                under Article 13(A)(1)(b) of Sixth Council Directive
1.     Dismisses the application;                                                77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the
                                                                                laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —
                                                                                Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assess-
2.     Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                            ment;
                                                                           2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 136 of 15.05.1999.


title: Case C-341/07: Action brought on 20 July 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/30

         Action brought on 20 July 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden
   (Case C-341/07)
   (2007/C 211/57)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: W. Wils and P. Dejmek, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 (1) on the enforcement of intellectual property rights or, in any event, by failing to notify the Commission thereof, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for implementation of the Directive expired on 28 April 2006.

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45.


title: Case C-699/15: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom) made on 24 December 2015 — Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs v Brockenhurst College

text:
               29.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom) made on 24 December 2015 — Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs v Brockenhurst College
   (Case C-699/15)
   (2016/C 078/10)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

      Defendant: Brockenhurst College

      Questions referred

               1.

               With regard to article 132(1)(i) of the VAT Directive (1), are supplies of restaurant services and entertainment services made by an educational establishment to paying members of the public (who are not recipients of the principal supply of education) ‘closely related’ to the provision of education in circumstances where the making of those supplies is facilitated by the students (who are the recipients of the principal supply of education) in the course of their education and as an essential part of their education?

               2.

               ln determining whether the supplies of restaurant services and entertainment services are within the exemption in article 132(1)(i) as services ‘closely related’ to the provision of education:

                           a.

                           is it relevant that the students benefit from being involved in the making of the supplies in question rather than from the subject matter of those supplies;

                           b.

                           is it relevant that those supplies are not received or consumed either directly or indirectly by the students but are received and consumed by those members of the public who pay for them and who are not recipients of the principal supply of education;

                           c.

                           is it relevant that, from the paint of view of the typical recipients of the services in question (that is to say, the members of the public who pay for them), the supplies do not represent a means of better enjoying any other supply but are an end in themselves;

                           d.

                           is it relevant that, from the point of view of the students, the supplies in question are not an end in themselves but participating in the making of the supplies represents a means of better enjoying the principal supply of education services;

                           e.

                           to what extent should the principle of fiscal neutrality be taken into account?

      (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax.

      OJ L 347, p. 1.


title: Case T-471/11: Action brought on 5 September 2011 — Éditions Jacob v Commission

text:
               15.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/9

         Action brought on 5 September 2011 — Éditions Jacob v Commission
   (Case T-471/11)
   2011/C 305/11
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Éditions Odile Jacob SAS (Paris, France) (represented by: O. Fréget, M. Struys and L. Eskenazi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision SG-Greffe (2011) D/C(2011)3503 of 13 May 2011, adopted in Case COMP/M.2978 Lagardère/Natexis/VUP following the judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2010 in Case T-452/04 Éditions Odile Jacob v Commission, by which the Commission once again approved Wendel as purchaser of the assets transferred in accordance with the commitments attached to the Commission’s decision of 7 January 2004 authorising the concentration Lagardère/Natexis/VUP;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that it was clearly impossible for the Commission to adopt a confirmatory decision — with, moreover, retroactive effect — which validated ex post facto the approval of Wendel as purchaser of Editis. The applicant maintains that:

                           —

                           by acting in that way, without drawing any of the conclusions entailed by the Court’s finding of illegality related to the lack of independence of the trustee responsible for overseeing that transfer, the Commission infringed Article 266 TFEU;

                           —

                           by setting 30 July 2004 as the date on which the contested decision became effective, the Commission infringed the principle of non-retroactivity, disregarding the case-law of the Court of Justice, which allows retroactivity, by way of an exception, only if two conditions are met — that it is required by overriding reasons related to the public interest and that the legitimate expectations of the persons concerned have been duly respected.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that there was no legal basis for the contested decision, since the Commission’s decision of 7 January 2004 authorising the concentration had ceased to apply following the Court’s finding that Lagardère had failed to comply with some of the commitments.

               3.

               Third and fourth pleas in law, alleging that the Commission made errors of law and manifest errors of assessment in its appraisal of Wendel’s bid, both in 2004 and in the new decision granting approval; it also alleged that the Commission had made errors deriving, first, from its taking into account, when adopting the contested decision, facts subsequent to 30 July 2004 and, second, from those later facts being used in a selective and partial manner.

               4.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging misuse of powers inasmuch as, by adopting ex post facto a decision retroactively approving an unlawful transfer and approving a new trustee whose only task was to draw up a further report confirming Wendel’s suitability as a purchaser of the assets transferred, the Commission failed to apply Article 266 TFEU and Regulation No 4064/89 (1) for their proper purpose, Regulation No 4064/89 providing, inter alia, for the possibility of revoking the clearance decision and penalising the parties responsible for the illegality.

               5.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the statement of reasons is defective since the reasoning in the contested decision is both inadequate and contradictory.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 1; entire text republished following correction in OJ 1990 L 257, p. 13).


title: Case T-120/12: Action brought on 9 March 2012 — Shahid Beheshti University v Council

text:
               9.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/22

         Action brought on 9 March 2012 — Shahid Beheshti University v Council
   (Case T-120/12)
   2012/C 165/38
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

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

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Decision 2011/299/CFSP of 23 May 2011 in so far as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               declare Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 inapplicable to the applicant pursuant to Article 277 TFEU;

               —

               annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2011 of 23 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 in so far as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               declare Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 inapplicable to the applicant pursuant to Article 277 TFEU;

               —

               annul Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 in so far as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 in so far as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               annul the decision contained the Council’s letter of 5 December 2011 addressed to the applicant; and

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging lack of legal basis for Decision 2010/413/CFSP, which is the legal basis for Decision 2011/299/CFSP, and infringement of the Treaties and of international law. Decision 2010/413/CFSP should therefore be held to be inapplicable to the applicant.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging lack of legal basis for Regulation No 961/2010, which is the legal basis for Implementing Regulation No 503/2011. The applicant claims that Article 215 TFEU cannot be the legal basis for Regulation No 961/2010, since Decision 2010/413/CFSP, which it is intended to implement in the European Union internal legal order, was not adopted in accordance with Chapter 2 of Title V of the TEU. Regulation No 261/2010 should accordingly be declared inapplicable to the applicant.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 215 TFEU in the procedure for listing the applicant in Annex VIII to Regulation No 961/2010 by Implementing Regulation No 503/2011.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement, by Decision 2011/29/CFSP and Implementing Regulation No 502/2011, of the rights of the defence, sound administration and the right to effective legal protection, since the Council did not observe the right to be heard, the obligation of notification and the obligation to state reasons.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to respect for property.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging that the inclusion of the applicant on the list of sanctioned entities results from an error of fact, in that the applicant, as a public university having legal personality without representation of the Ministry of Defence and of the logistical support to the armed forces in its governing body, is not held or controlled by that minister or involved in scientific research relating to nuclear arms.


title: Case C-501/15 P: Appeal brought on 22 September 2015 by Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 15 July 2015 in Case T-24/13: Cactus S.A. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               14.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 414/18

         Appeal brought on 22 September 2015 by Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 15 July 2015 in Case T-24/13: Cactus S.A. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-501/15 P)
   (2015/C 414/22)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, agent)

      Other party to the proceedings: Cactus S.A.

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Uphold the Appeal in its entirety

               —

               Annul the Contested Judgment

               —

               Order Cactus S.A. to pay the costs incurred by the Office.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   According to the ‘IP Translator’ Judgment, the designation of a class heading may cover all the goods or services included in the alphabetical list of this class. However such a designation cannot amount to a claim to the totality of all goods and services of a particular class. The General Court misapplied the ‘IP Translator’ Judgment and violated Article 28 CTMR (1) and Rule 2 CTMIR in equating the coverage of the class heading in class 35 with all the services belonging to this class. Since neither the retail services as such nor the services of ‘retailing of natural plants and flowers, grains; fresh fruits and vegetables’ are included in the alphabetical list of class 35, the earlier Community trademarks are not protected in respect of such services. The requirement to specify the goods or types of goods to which the retail services relate, which applies to all trademarks including to those filed before the ‘Praktiker’ Judgment, is a further bar to the General Court’s conclusion that the abstract designation of the class heading in class 35 extends to retail services in respect of all possible goods.
   The finding that use only of the stylised cactus does not alter the distinctive character of the earlier figurative mark, within the meaning of Article 15(1)(a) CTMR, is vitiated by four errors in law. In basing its conclusion only on the semantic concordance between the logo and the word element, the General Court failed to examine to which extent the word element ‘Cactus’ was distinctive and important in the earlier composite mark. The General Court failed to have regard to the visual and (possible) phonetic differences between the logo and the composite mark, it wrongly based its finding on the prior knowledge that the public in Luxembourg has of the earlier composite mark and it failed to consider the perception of the European public as a whole.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark OJ L 78, p. 1.


title: Case T-206/14: Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2015 — Hüpeden v Council and Commission (Non-contractual liability — Dumping — Imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits originating in China — Regulation (EC) No 1355/2008 declared invalid by the Court of Justice — Loss allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the adoption of the regulation — Action for damages — Exhaustion of remedies under domestic law — Admissibility — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Article 2(7)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (now Article 2(7)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009) — Duty of care — Causal link)

text:
               23.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 389/46

         Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2015 — Hüpeden v Council and Commission
   (Case T-206/14) (1)

   ((Non-contractual liability - Dumping - Imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits originating in China - Regulation (EC) No 1355/2008 declared invalid by the Court of Justice - Loss allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the adoption of the regulation - Action for damages - Exhaustion of remedies under domestic law - Admissibility - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals - Article 2(7)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (now Article 2(7)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009) - Duty of care - Causal link))
   (2015/C 389/50)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Hüpeden & Co. (GmbH & Co.) KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by K. Landry, lawyer)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by J.-P. Hix, acting as Agent, assisted initially by D. Geradin and N. Tuominen, and subsequently by N. Tuominen, lawyers); and European Commission (represented by T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for damages seeking compensation for the loss allegedly suffered as a result of the adoption of Council Regulation (EC) No 1355/2008 of 18 December 2008 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits (namely mandarins, etc.) originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2008 L 350, p. 35), declared invalid by the judgment of 22 March 2012 in GLS (C-338/10, ECR, EU:C:2012:158).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Hüpeden & Co. (GmbH & Co.) KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 212, 7.7.2014.


title: Case C-242/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Augsburg by order of that court of 26 April 1999 in the case of Johann Vogler v Landwirtschaftliche Alterskasse Schwaben

text:
C 246/18              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    28.8.1999
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Sala de lo Social,           1. Is Article 13(1) in conjunction with Article 14a(2) of
Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia, by order of 14                  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social
June 1999 in the case of Confederación Intersindical                     security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed
  Galega (C.I.G.) and Servicio Galego de Saude (SERGAS)                   persons 1and to members of their families moving within
                                                                          the Community (1), in the version of Council Regulation
                                                                          (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (2), as last amended
                        (Case C-241/99)                                   by Council Regulation (EC) No 307/99 of 8 February
                                                                          1999 (3), invalid because to provide freedom of establish-
                        (1999/C 246/37)                                   ment in accordance with Article 52 of the EC Treaty it is
                                                                          not necessary within the meaning of Articles 51 and 235
                                                                          of the EC Treaty, each in conjunction with the second and
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    third paragraphs of Article 3b of the EC Treaty, to provide
European Communities by order of the Sala de lo Social,                   that a person who has sickness, accident and pension
Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Chamber for Social              insurance with the Sozialversicherung der gewerblichen
Affairs of the High Court of Justice of Galicia) of 14 June               Wirtschaft in Austria, as the self-employed operator of a
1999, which was received at the Court Registry on 25 June                 hotel, and in addition is covered in principle, as the
1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Confederación              self-employed operator of an agricultural undertaking in
Intersindical Galega (C.I.G.) and Servicio Galego de Saude                Germany, by the German old-age insurance scheme for
(SERGAS), on the following questions:                                     farmers, because of being resident in Austria is subject
                                                                          exclusively to Austrian legislation not only with respect to
1. In the light of Article 1(3) of Council Directive                      the risk of ’sickness’ but also with respect to the risks
    93/104/EC (1), must it be concluded that the work of the              of ’old age’ and ’invalidity’ or ’accidents at work and
    professional persons to which this dispute relates falls              occupational diseases’?
    within the scope of that directive?
2. In the light of Article 118 of the Treaty and the reference
                                                                       2. If the answer to Question 1 is No:
    to Directive 89/391/EC (2) in the preamble to, and Article
    1(4) of, Directive 93/104/EC, is it appropriate to conclude
    that the work of the professional persons at issue in
    this dispute falls within the scope of the exceptions or              Is Article 13(2)(b) of Regulation No 1408/71 to be
    exclusions referred to in Article 2 of the last-mentioned             interpreted as meaning that a person who pursues several
    directive and in Article 17 of Directive 93/104/EC?                   self-employed activities in the territory of several Member
                                                                          States is subject to the legislations of those States (in this
3. In view of the fact that Article 4.2 of Decree No 172/95 of            case, Austria and Germany), even if he rives in the territory
    the Xunta de Galicia of 18 May 1995 provides that                     of one Member State only (in this case, Austria)?
    ‘Assistance shall be provided on the basis of personal
    attendance’, must the whole period of a shift be regarded
    as ordinary working time? May that period be regarded as           3. Or is Article 14a(2) of Regulation No 1408/71 applicable
    constituting overtime?                                                only to persons who normally pursue a specific self-
                                                                          employed activity, but not two different self-employed
                                                                          activities, in the territory of two or more Member States?
(1) OJ L 307 of 13.12.1993, p. 18.
(2) OJ L 183 of 29.6.1989, p. 1.
                                                                          Or is Article 14a(2) of Regulation No 1408/71 applicable
                                                                          also to persons who normally pursue two or more
                                                                          self-employed activities not connected with each other in
                                                                          the territory of two or more Member States?
                                                                       4. What is the relationship between Article 14a(3) of Regu-
                                                                          lation No 1408/71 and Article 14a(2) of Regulation No
                                                                          1408/71? Is Article 14a(3) to be interpreted as meaning
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht                 that the social insurance obligation of the operator of
Augsburg by order of that court of 26 April 1999 in the                   an agricultural undertaking is always governed by the
case of Johann Vogler v Landwirtschaftliche Alterskasse                   legislation of the State of the registered office or place of
                           Schwaben                                       business, even if one or more other self-employed activities
                                                                          are pursued in another Member State?
                        (Case C-242/99)
                        (1999/C 246/38)                                5. Or does Article 14c of Regulation No 1408/71 in conjunc-
                                                                          tion with Annex VII for the implementation of Article
                                                                          14c(b), point 3, contain a legislative lacuna for the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    agricultural accident insurance scheme and the old-age
European Communities by an order of the Sozialgericht (Social             insurance scheme for farmers, if the latter pursue self-
Court) Augsburg Germany, of 26 Apri1 1999, which was                      employed agricultural activity in Germany and are not
received at the Court Registry on 25 June 1999, for a                     gainfully employed in another Member State but pursue a
preliminary ruling in the case of Johann Vogler v Landwirt-               self-employed activity there (in this case, a hotelier in
schaftliche Alterskasse Schwaben on the following questions:              Austria)?
 ---pagebreak--- 28.8.1999                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 246/19
     If so: May Article 14c(b) of Regulation No 1408/71 in                 Action brought on 1 July 1999 by the Commission of the
     conjunction with Annex VII (implementation of Article                 European Communities against the Kingdom of Denmark
     14c(b)) be applied by analogy to the situation in this case
     of the pursuit of two different self-employed activities
     (hotelier in Austria and farmer in Germany)?                                                  (Case C-246/99)
                                                                                (1999/C 246/40)
( 1) OJ, English Special Edition, 1971, p. 416.
(2) OJ L 28 of 30.1.1997, p. 1.
                                                                           An action against the Kingdom of Denmark was brought
(3) OJ L 38 of 12.2.1999, p. 1.                                            before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 1
                                                                           July 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                           represented by Hans Christian Støvlbæk, of its Legal Service,
                                                                           acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                           the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,
                                                                           Kirchberg.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           1. Declare that, by maintaining Paragraphs 2(1) and 1(2) of
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht                        Decree No 124 of 27 February 1989 on packaging for
Korneuburg (Austria) by order of 18 June 1999 in the                           beer and soft drinks, as most recently amended by Decree
case of FILA Sport S.p.A. v Beijing Metals & Minerals                          No 300 of 30 April 1997, providing that drinks covered
                      Import & Export Corp.                                    by the Decree may be marketed only in returnable
                                                                               packaging, and by maintaining Paragraph 3 of that Decree,
                                                                               which provides that the packaging of imported drinks may
                                                                               not be made of metal, the Kingdom of Denmark, further
                           (Case C-243/99)                                     to Article 226 EC (ex Article 169), has failed to fulfil
                                                                               its obligations under European Parliament and Council
                                                                               Directive 94/62/EC (1) of 20 December 1994 on packaging
                           (1999/C 246/39)                                     and packaging waste, particularly Article 18, in conjunc-
                                                                               tion with Articles 5, 7 and 9 thereof, and Articles 28 and
                                                                               30 EC (ex Articles 30 and 36);
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 18 June 1999 from
the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Regional Court, Korneuburg)                  2. Order the Kingdom of Denmark to pay the costs of these
(Austria), which was received at the Court Registry on 28 June                 proceedings.
1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of FILA Sport S.p.A.
v Beijing Metals & Minerals Import & Export Corp. on the
following question:
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
On a proper construction of Article 1 thereof, is Council
Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 of 22 December 1994 laying                      — Directive 92/64/EC provides that Member States, on the
down measures to prohibit the release for free circulation,                    one hand, cannot impede the placing on the market of
                                                                               their territory of packaging which satisfies the rules of the
export, re-export or entry for a suspensive procedure of
                                                                               Directive (Article 18) and, on the other, may allow
counterfeit and pirated goods (1) also applicable to situations
                                                                               packaging to be placed on the market only if it complies
in which goods of the type specified therein are, in the course
of transit between two States not belonging to the European                    with the essential requirements of the Directive (Article
Community, temporarily detained by customs authorities in a                    9(1)). The Directive thus establishes full harmonisation of
                                                                               Member States’ national rules on packaging and packaging
Member State on the basis of that regulation, at the request of
                                                                               waste.
a holder of rights who claims that his rights have been
infringed and whose undertaking has its registered office in a
Member State of the European Community?
                                                                               The Directive does not contain provisions authorising
                                                                               Member States to lay down more stringent rules. It follows
                                                                               that Member States cannot maintain in force national
                                                                               requirements which diverge from those laid down in the
(1) OJ 1994 L 341 of 30.12.1994, p. 8.                                         Directive. Since the Directive establishes full harmonisation
                                                                               of the rules on packaging, inter alia with a view to
                                                                               preventing competition from being distorted, a Member
                                                                               State cannot apply rules on the packaging to be used for
                                                                               domestic drinks which differ from those which may be
                                                                               applied to packaging for imported drinks.


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 9 August 1999 in Joined Cases T-38/99 R, T-39/99 R, T-40/99 R, T-41/99 R, T-42/99 R, T-45/99 R, T-48/99 R and T-49/99 R: Sociedade Agrícola dos Arinhos Lda and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Procedure for interim measures - Urgency - None)

text:
16.10.1999             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 299/25
Nutrition Animale (Fefana), established in Brussels, represented         Article 185 of the EC Treaty (now Article 242 EC) of enforce-
by Denis Waelbroeck and Dirk Brinckman, of the Brussels Bar,             ment of Article 2(a) of Commission Decision 98/653/EC of
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of             18 November 1998 concerning emergency measures made
Ernest Arendt, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, and Hedwig Kerckhove              necessary by the occurrence of bovine spongiform encepha-
and Paul Lambert, residing in Wingene (Belgium), represented             lopathy (BSE) in Portugal (OJ 1998 L 311, p. 23) inasmuch as
by Jacques Bourgeois, of the Brussels Bar, and Nina Köhncke,             it prohibits the despatch from Portugal to Spain and France of
Rechtsanwältin, Düsseldorf, with an address for service in               fighting bulls intended for cultural and sporting events held in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue,                  those Member States, and, second, for the grant of authoris-
v Council of the European Union (Agents: John Carbery and                ation pursuant to Article 186 of the EC Treaty (now
Moyra Sims), supported by Commission of the European                     Article 243 EC), subject to certain conditions, for the despatch
Communities (Agents: Peter Oliver, Theofanis Christoforou                of those animals from Portugal to Spain and France — the
and Francesco Ruggeri Laderchi), Kingdom of Denmark (Agent:              President of the Court of First Instance made an order on
Jørgen Molde), Kingdom of Sweden (Agent: Anders Kruse) and               9 August 1999, the operative part of which is as follows:
Republic of Finland (Agents: Holger Rotkirch and Tuula Pynnä)
— application for suspension of the operation of Council                 1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Regulation (EC) No 2821/98 of 17 December 1998 amending,
as regards withdrawal of the authorisation of certain anti-              2. The costs are reserved.
biotics, Directive 70/524/EEC concerning additives in feeding-
stuffs (OJ 1998 L 351, p. 4) or for other interim measures —
the President of the Court of First Instance made an order on
30 June 1999, the operative part of which is as follows:
1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.                    Action brought on 18 June 1999 by Daewoo Electronics
                                                                         Manufacturing España S.A (DEMESA) against the Com-
2. The costs are reserved.                                                           mission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-148/99)
                                                                                (1999/C 299/36)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                           INSTANCE                                      ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 18 June 1999 by Daewoo Elec-
                        of 9 August 1999                                 tronics Manufacturing España S.A. (DEMESA), established in
                                                                         Alava (Spain), represented by Antonio Creus Carreras and
                                                                         Begoña Uriarte Valiente, lawyers, with an address for service
in Joined Cases T-38/99 R, T-39/99 R, T-40/99 R, T-41/99 R,              c/o Cuatrecasas Abogados, 78 Avenue d’Auderghem, Brussels.
T-42/99 R, T-45/99 R and T-49/99 R: Sociedade Agrı́cola
dos Arinhos Lda and Others v Commission of the                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                    European Communities
                                                                         — annul the Commission’s decision of 24 February 1999
    (Procedure for interim measures — Urgency — None)                         concerning State aid granted by Spain to Daewoo Elec-
                                                                              tronics Manufacturing España S.A. (DEMESA);
                         (1999/C 299/35)                                 — order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
                 (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                                                                         The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
In Joined Cases T-38/99 R, T-39/99 R, T-40/99 R, T-41/99 R,              advanced in Case T-127/99 Territorio Histórico de Alava,
T-42/99 R, T-45/99 R and T-49/99 R: Sociedade Agrı́cola dos              Arabako Foru Aldundia - Diputación Foral de Alava v Com-
Arinhos Lda, established in Lisbon, Sociedade Agrı́cola do               mission of the European Communities and in Case T-129/99
Monte da Aldeia Lda, established in Lisbon, António José da             Comunidad Autónoma del Paı́s Vasco and Gasteizco Industria
Veiga Teixeira, residing at Coruche (Portugal), Sociedade                Lurra v Commission.
Agrı́cola Monte da Senhora do Carmo SA established at
Almeirim (Portugal), Sociedade Agrı́cola de Perescuma SA,                The applicant pleads, in particular:
established al Almeirim, José de Barahona Núncio, residing at
Evora (Portugal), and Francisco Luı́s Pinheiro Caldeira, residing        — infringement of the rights of defence of the applicant
at Campo Maior (Portugal), represented by Carlos Botelho                      undertaking as the recipient of the alleged State aid in
Moniz and Júlia Rôla Roque, of the Lisbon Bar, with an address               issue, on account of the defendant’s failure to notify the
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31                   applicant of any of the steps taken in the administrative
Grand-Rue, v Commission of the European Communities                           procedure or to seek the applicant’s views concerning
(Agents: Ana Maria Alves Vieira, Gérard Berscheid and Vasco                   matters of great importance, whereas the contested
Airão) — application, first, for suspension pursuant to                      decision was indeed notified to it; and


title: Case C-248/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Feldkirch by order of that court of 22 June 2001 in the commercial register cases of (1) Hermann Pfanner Getränke Gesellschaft mbH and Others and (2) Getränkebetrieb Gesellschaft m.b.H. and Others v Republic of Austria

text:
13.10.2001             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 289/9
—    Failure to examine the principles of ‘dolo agit, qui petit,        2.    What criteria must be satisfied for a broadcast of several
     quod statim redditurus est’ and ‘fraus omnia corrumpit’.                 feature films and films made for television to be classified
     In the absence of a legally operative judgment imposing                  as a ‘serial’, derogating from the advertising restrictions
     a penalty the Commission is able to rely only on existing                for feature films and films made for television?
     suspicions and results of investigations, as soon as, and
     in so far as, these are available. This the Commission did         3.    Are broadcasts consisting of several parts which manifest
     in the present proceedings. By excluding, as a legal                     a common concept due to common features of theme,
     objection, application of the legal principle ‘fraus omnia               content and form, and which are broadcast at connected
     corrumpit’ in conjunction with the legal principle ‘dolo                 times, to be regarded as a ‘serial’ for the purposes of
     agit, qui petit, quod statim redditurus est’, in a case such             Article 11(3) of Directive 89/552/EEC as amended by
     as the present (but without having examined that issue in                Directive 97/36/EEC?
     any detail), and instead calling for the adoption of a new
     decision with a fresh statement of reasons, the Court of           4.    Does the interpretation of the term ‘serial’ for the
     First Instance is in effect obliging the Commission to pay               purposes of Article 11(3) of Directive 89/552/EEC as
     so long as its suspicions have not developed into                        amended by Directive 97/36/EEC permit common points
     incontrovertible certainty. As a general rule, however,                  of theme or content of the episodes to be wholly or
     any subsequent claim for repayment would fail on the                     largely regarded as unnecessary and predominantly points
     ground that the debtor has disappeared, no longer has                    of form or form of reception taken as the criterion?
     assets or has become insolvent.
                                                                        (1) OJ 1989 L 298, p. 23.
(1) Not yet published in the European Court Reports.                    (2) OJ 1997 L 202, p. 60.
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht
                                                                        Feldkirch by order of that court of 22 June 2001 in
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Niedersächsi-                 the commercial register cases of (1) Hermann Pfanner
sches Oberverwaltungsgericht by order of that court of                  Getränke Gesellschaft mbH and Others and (2) Getränke-
15 June 2001 in the case of RTL Television GmbH against                 betrieb Gesellschaft m.b.H. and Others v Republic of
Niedersächsische Landesmedienanstalt für privaten Rund-                                               Austria
                                funk
                                                                                (Case C-248/01)
                          (Case C-245/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 289/17)
                         (2001/C 289/16)
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by an order of the Landesgericht
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  Feldkirch (Regional Court, Feldkirch), Austria, of 22 June
European Communities by order of the Niedersächsisches                  2001, which was received at the Court Registry on 27 June
Oberverwaltungsgericht (Lower Saxony Higher Administrative              2001, for a preliminary ruling in the commercial register cases
Court) of 15 June 2001, which was received at the Court                 of (1) Hermann Pfanner Getränke Gesellschaft mbH and
Registry on 25 June 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case          Others and (2) Getränkebetrieb Gesellschaft m.b.H. and Others
of RTL Television GmbH against Niedersachsische Landesme-               v Republic of Austria on the following questions on the
dienanstalt für privaten Rundfunk on the following questions:           validity of the First Council Directive 68/151/EEC (1) and the
                                                                        Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC (2):
1.   Does Article 11(3) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC(1) of
     3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions           1.    Is the obligation of general disclosure of the annual
     laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in                 accounts of every capital company regardless of its
     Member States concerning the pursuit of television                       economic circumstances compatible with the fundamental
     broadcasting activities as amended by Directive 97/36/EC                 and human rights guaranteed in Community law, funda-
     of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) of                     mental freedoms and general principles of law of the
     30 June 1997, by restricting advertising breaks, pursue                  Member States, in particular the rights to data protection,
     the objective of protecting the artistic value of feature                freedom of expression, informational self-determination,
     films and films made for television, irrespective of                     private life, protection of business and commercial sec-
     whether films made for television have from the outset                   rets, property and freedom to carry on a trade, private
     been produced for television and provided with breaks                    autonomy and compliance with the requirement of
     designed for the insertion of advertising spots?                         reasonableness (proportionality)?
 ---pagebreak--- C 289/10                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   13.10.2001
2.   Would it not be an alternative more compatible with                        registered, the holder commits an offence when driving a
     fundamental rights to restrict the obligation to disclose                  motor vehicle in the Netherlands?
     company data to undertakings for which independent
     auditors have found problems with specific data of
     the undertaking and hence a special public need for                   2.   Does national legislation such as that described in the
     information?                                                               first question and which has the consequences set out
                                                                                therein constitute a restriction on the free movement of
                                                                                persons and, if so, can that restriction be justified by the
3.   Are the disclosure obligations in the First and Fourth                     consideration that it enables the data featured on the
     Directives compatible with the fundamental rights under                    document to be regularly renewed and the document to
     the European Charter of Fundamental Rights?                                be adjusted to technological improvements as regards the
                                                                                requirements which the document should meet from the
                                                                                point of view of security and prevention of fraud?
4.   Did the data protection directive, telecommunications
     directive and administrative assistance directive derogate
     substantively from the disclosure directives?
                                                                           (1) OJ 1991, L 237, p. 1.
(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1968(I), p. 41.
(2) OJ 1978 L 222, p. 11.
                                                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Simvoulio tis
                                                                           Epikratias by judgment of that court of 12 June 2001 in
                                                                           the case of Panagiotis Markopoulos and Others against
                                                                           the Minister for Development, the Soma Orkoton
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arrondisse-                                           Elegkton and Others
mentsrechtbank Rotterdam by judgment of that court of
27 June 2001 in the case of S. Klip-Krüger against Board
of the Dienst Wegverkeer, a public agency having legal                                               (Case C-255/01)
                             personality
                                                                                (2001/C 289/19)
                          (Case C-253/01)
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                          (2001/C 289/18)                                  European Communities by judgment of the Simvoulio tis
                                                                           Epikratias (Council of State) of 12 June 2001, received at the
                                                                           Court Registry on 3 July 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     case of Panagiotis Markopoulos and Others against the Minister
European Communities by judgment of the Arrondissements-                   for Development, the Soma Orkoton Elegkton (Institute of
rechtbank Rotterdam (District Court, Rotterdam) of 27 June                 Certified Auditors) and Others on the following questions:
2001, received at the Court Registry on 2 July 2001, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of S. Klip-Krüger v Board of the
Dienst Wegverkeer (road traffic authority), a public agency                a)   May the national legislature, on the basis of Article 15 of
having legal personality, on the following questions:                           the Eighth Council Directive 84/253/EEC of 10 April
                                                                                1984 (1), make use of the power provided for by that
                                                                                article and provide for the possibility for various catego-
1.   Must the Directive (1) — more particularly Article 1(1)                    ries of persons to be approved to audit accounting
     and (2) thereof — be interpreted as meaning that national                  documents, in derogation from the permanent rules,
     legislation adopted in implementation thereof is consist                   that is to say without first sitting an examination of
     with it where under that legislation an obligation exists                  professional competence, when the Member State in
     or arises for the holder of a driving licence issued by the                question has already, before the adoption of the directive,
     competent authority in the Federal Republic of Germany,                    laid down that examination in national law? In any event,
     which is valid for the holder’s lifetime, to exchange that                 may the national legislature make repeated use of the
     licence within one year of moving his normal place of                      power to adopt transitional provisions on the basis of the
     residence to the Netherlands, because a driving licence                    abovementioned article of the directive, in particular after
     issued more than ten years previously cannot be registered                 the deadline of 1 January 1991 (Article 15 in conjunction
     in the Netherlands and, if the driving licence is not                      with Article 30(2) of the directive)?


title: Case C-292/07: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 23 April 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Public procurement — Directive 2004/18/EC — Procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts — Incorrect or incomplete transposition — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/5

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 23 April 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-292/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Public procurement - Directive 2004/18/EC - Procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts - Incorrect or incomplete transposition - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   2009/C 141/07
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Stromsky, D. Kukovec and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: D. Haven and J.-C. Halleux, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose or to transpose completely and/or correctly Article 1(2)(b) in conjunction with Annex I; the second sentence of Article 9(1); Article 9(8)(a)(i) and (iii); Article 23(2); Article 30(2) to (4); Article 31(1)(c); Article 38(1); point (d) of the first paragraph of Article 43; the second subparagraph of Article 44(2); Article 44(3) and (4); the first paragraph of Article 46; Article 48(2)(f); points (d) and (e) of the second subparagraph of Article 55(1); Article 55(3); the second and third subparagraphs of Article 67(2); the first paragraph of point (a) of Article 68; Article 72, and Article 74(1) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2083/2005 of 19 December 2005, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 08.09.2007.


title: Case C-459/03: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of  30 May 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea — Part XII — Protection and preservation of the marine environment — Dispute-settlement system provided for under that convention — Arbitration proceedings initiated on the basis of that system by Ireland against the United Kingdom — Dispute relating to the MOX plant at Sellafield (United Kingdom) — Irish Sea — Articles 292 EC and 193 EA — Undertaking not to submit a dispute relating to the interpretation or application of the Treaty to a method of settlement other than those provided for by the Treaty — Mixed agreement — Community competence — Articles 10 EC and 192 EA — Duty of cooperation)

text:
               15.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 30 May 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland
   (Case C-459/03) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea - Part XII - Protection and preservation of the marine environment - Dispute-settlement system provided for under that convention - Arbitration proceedings initiated on the basis of that system by Ireland against the United Kingdom - Dispute relating to the MOX plant at Sellafield (United Kingdom) - Irish Sea - Articles 292 EC and 193 EA - Undertaking not to submit a dispute relating to the interpretation or application of the Treaty to a method of settlement other than those provided for by the Treaty - Mixed agreement - Community competence - Articles 10 EC and 192 EA - Duty of cooperation)
   (2006/C 165/04)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P.J. Kuijper and B. Martenczuk, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: C. Jackson and C. Gibbs Agents, and by R. Plender QC)

      Defendant: Ireland (represented by: R. Brady and D. O'Hagan, Agents, and by P. Sreenan and E. Fitzsimons, SC, P. Sands QC, and N. Hyland, BL)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: K. Wistrand, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Bringing of an action by Ireland against the United Kingdom before the Arbitral Tribunal established under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea — Infringement of the exclusive jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice — Breach of the duty of cooperation
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by instituting dispute-settlement proceedings against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea concerning the MOX plant located at Sellafield (United Kingdom), Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 10 EC and 292 EC and under Articles 192 EA and 193 EA;

               2.

               Orders Ireland to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Kingdom of Sweden to bear their own respective costs.

      (1)  OJ C 7, 10.01.2004.


title: Case C-40/14: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 20 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Direction générale des douanes et droits indirects, Chef de l’Agence de poursuites de la Direction nationale du renseignement et des enquêtes douanières, Direction régionale des douanes et droits indirects de Lyon v Utopia SARL (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs union and Common Customs Tariff — Importation free of customs duties — Animals specially prepared for laboratory use — Public establishment or an authorised private establishment — Importer whose customers are such establishments — Packing materials or packing containers — Cages used for transportation of animals)

text:
               26.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/8

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 20 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Direction générale des douanes et droits indirects, Chef de l’Agence de poursuites de la Direction nationale du renseignement et des enquêtes douanières, Direction régionale des douanes et droits indirects de Lyon v Utopia SARL
   (Case C-40/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union and Common Customs Tariff - Importation free of customs duties - Animals specially prepared for laboratory use - Public establishment or an authorised private establishment - Importer whose customers are such establishments - Packing materials or packing containers - Cages used for transportation of animals))
   (2015/C 026/10)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Direction générale des douanes et droits indirects, Chef de l’Agence de poursuites de la Direction nationale du renseignement et des enquêtes douanières, Direction régionale des douanes et droits indirects de Lyon

      Respondent: Utopia SARL

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 60 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 of 28 March 1983 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty, as amended by the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, must be interpreted as meaning that, where animals specially prepared for laboratory use, which an importer brings into the European Union, are intended for a public establishment or an authorised private establishment which is principally engaged in education or scientific research, that importer, although it is not itself such an establishment, may be entitled to the relief from import duties provided for by that article for goods of this type.

               2.

               General rule 5(b) of the Combined Nomenclature contained in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1789/2003 of 11 September 2003, must be interpreted as meaning that cages used for transportation of live animals intended for laboratory research should not be categorised as packing materials or packing containers which are to be classified with the goods to which they relate.

      (1)  OJ C 102, 7.4.2014.


title: Case T-154/15 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 20 May 2015 — Jaber v Council (Application for interim measures — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Freezing of funds and restriction on entry into and transit through the territory of the European Union — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Failure to comply with the procedural requirements — Inadmissibility)

text:
               6.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/21

         Order of the President of the General Court of 20 May 2015 — Jaber v Council
   (Case T-154/15 R)
   ((Application for interim measures - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Freezing of funds and restriction on entry into and transit through the territory of the European Union - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Failure to comply with the procedural requirements - Inadmissibility))
   (2015/C 221/29)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Aiman Jaber (Lattakia, Syria) (represented by: A. Boesch, D. Amaudruz and M. Ponsard, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Re:

   Application for suspension of operation of the measures imposed on the applicant under Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/108 of 26 January 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2015 L 20, p. 2), and of Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/117 of 26 January 2015 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2015 L 20, p. 85).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.