title: Case C-189/02 P: Appeal brought on 21 May 2002 by Dansk Rørindustri A/S against the judgment delivered on 20 March 2002 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber) in Case T-21/99 Dansk Rørindustri A/S v Commission of the European Communities

text:
24.8.2002                EN                          Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 202/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                     ORDER OF THE COURT                                      26 May 1989 on the accession of the Kingdom of Spain and
                                                                             the Portuguese Republic (OJ 1989 L 285, p. 1) and the
                                                                             Convention of 29 November 1996 on the accession of the
                           (First Chamber)                                   Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom
                                                                             of Sweden (OJ 1997 C 15, p. 1) — the Court (First Chamber),
                                                                             composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet
                          of 22 March 2002
                                                                             and A. Rosas, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass,
                                                                             Administrator, for the Registrar, has made an order the
in Case C-69/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                     operative part of which is as follows:
the Tribunal de Paix, Luxembourg): Tilly Reichling v Léon
                             Wampach (1)                                     The Court of Justice of the European Communities manifestly has no
                                                                             jurisdiction to reply to the question referred to it by the Tribunal de
                                                                             Paix, Luxembourg, by judgment of 28 February 2002.
(Brussels Convention — Protocol concerning the interpret-
ation by the Court of Justice of the Convention — National
courts which may request the Court of Justice to give                        (1) OJ 2002 C 118.
preliminary rulings — Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the
                                Court)
                           (2002/C 202/01)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                             Appeal brought on 21 May 2002 by Dansk Rørindustri
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       A/S against the judgment delivered on 20 March 2002 by
                    in the European Court Reports)                           the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                             (Fourth Chamber) in Case T-21/99 (1) Dansk Rørindustri
                                                                                A/S v Commission of the European Communities
In Case C-69/02: reference to the Court from the Tribunal de                                           (Case C-189/02 P)
Paix (Luxembourg) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
pending before that court between Tilly Reichling and Léon                                              (2002/C 202/02)
Wampach, intervener: Établissement d’assurances contre la
vieillesse et l’invalidité — on the interpretation of the Brussels
Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the
enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ                 An appeal has been brought before the Court of Justice of the
1972 L 299, 32), as amended by the Convention of Accession                   European Communities on 21 May 2002 by Dansk Rørindustri
of 9 October 1978 of the Kingdom of Denmark, of Ireland                      A/S, represented by K. Dyekjær-Hansen, K. Høegh and
and of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern                      C.K. Lauridsen, against the judgment delivered on 20 March
Ireland (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 1 — amended text — p. 77), the                    2002 by the Court of First Instance of the European Commu-
Convention of 25 October 1982 on the accession of the                        nities (Fourth Chamber) in Case T-21/99 Dansk Rørindustri
Hellenic Republic (OJ 1982 L 388, p. 1), the Convention of                   A/S v Commission of the European Communities.
 ---pagebreak--- C 202/2                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        24.8.2002
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                      It is not denied that the wording of Article 15(2) of
                                                                                Regulation No 17 does not contain an express limit on
—     Amend Article 3 of Commission Decision 1999/60/EC                          turnover within the EU. However, an understanding of
      of 21 October 1998 relating to a proceeding under                          the meaning of that relevant turnover has taken form
      [former] Article 85 of the EC Treaty (Case No IV/35.691/                   over the course of the years to such a degree that this
      E-4: — Pre-Insulated Pipe Cartel) (OJ 1999 L 24, p. 1) in                  understanding has assumed the character of a customary
      such a way as to reduce the fine of ECU 1 475 000 im-                      practice which cannot, in the absence of additional
      posed on the appellant;                                                    factors, be amended with retroactive effect.
—     In the alternative, in relation to the first head of claim: set      —     Formal error: even though the Court of Justice might
      aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance and                      uphold the Court of First Instance’s acceptance of the
      remit the case for further consideration of the question                   manner in which the Commission applied the guidelines,
      of the level of the fine;                                                  the Court of First Instance erred in failing to accept that
                                                                                application of those guidelines with retroactive effect
—     Order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by                          amounts to an infringement of the audi alteram partem
      Dansk Rørindustri A/S in the proceedings before the two                    principle inasmuch as the appellant did not have any
      Community Courts.                                                          opportunity to state its views on this amended practice.
                                                                           (1) OJ 1999 C 100, p. 19.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            (2) First Council Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the
                                                                               Treaty, OJ English Special Edition 1959-1962, p. 87.
Misconstruction of the law, consisting in an endorsement of                (3) Commission Information of January 1998 on Guidelines on the
                                                                               Method of setting Fines imposed pursuant to Article 15(2) of
the Commission’s setting of the fine, by which the Court of                    Regulation No 17 and Article 65(5) of the ECSC Treaty (OJ 1998
First Instance                                                                 C 9, p. 3).
—     set aside Regulation No 17 (2) in conjunction with the
      generally applicable principles of proportionality and
      equality by imposing on Dansk Rørindustri a fine which,
      by virtue of its relative amount, is disproportionate to the
      infringement committed;
                                                                           Appeal brought on 31 May 2002 by (1) Isoplus Fernwär-
—     set aside Regulation No 17 in conjunction with the                   metechnik Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH, (2) Isoplus
      general principle of protection of legitimate expectations           Fernwärmetechnik Gesellschaft mbH and (3) Isoplus
      by applying principles governing the imposition of                   Fernwärmetechnik GmbH against the judgment delivered
      fines (3) which were substantially altered in relation to the        on 20 March 2002 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court
      principles in force at the time of the unlawful conduct              of First Instance of the European Communities in Case
      and when the case was brought: it is not in accordance               T-9/99 between HFB Holding für Fernwärmetechnik
      with the purpose behind the Treaty and Regulation No 17              Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, HFB Holding für
      to apply guidelines on the level of fines that are drafted           Fernwärmtechnik Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH, Verwal-
      in such a way that the intended and mandatory gradation              tungsgesellschaft, Isoplus Fernwärmetechnik Vertriebs-
      has no value or meaning whatsoever for small undertak-               gesellschaft mbH, Isoplus Fernwärmetechnik Gesellschaft
      ings. This, in the first place, gives rise to blatant and            mbH und Isoplus Fernwärmetechnik GmbH and the
      unreasonable discrimination against smaller undertakings                       Commission of the European Communities
      and, second, has the result that the intended and manda-
      tory gradation according to, inter alia, degree of guilt and                                 (Case C-202/02 P)
      passage of time no longer serves any purpose and is
      rendered subordinate to a determination calculated in an                                      (2002/C 202/03)
      entirely automatic manner.
      The fact that the Court of First Instance reduced the factor
      for the duration of the infringement without that having             An appeal against the judgment delivered on 20 March 2002
      any significance whatsoever demonstrates that a gra-                 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
      dation of the fine imposed on Dansk Rørindustri in line              European Communities in Case T-9/99 between HFB Holding
      with the scope of the infringement did not and cannot                für Fernwärmetechnik Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG,
      take place if the guidelines are applied schematically               HFB Holding für Fernwärmtechnik Beteiligungsgesellschaft
      without any account whatever being taken of the size of              mbH, Verwaltungsgesellschaft, Isoplus Fernwärmetechnik Ver-
      the undertaking.                                                     triebsgesellschaft mbH, Isoplus Fernwärmetechnik Gesellschaft
                                                                           mbH und Isoplus Fernwärmetechnik GmbH and the Com-
      It is grotesque that ABB, as the instigator, had its fine            mission of the European Communities was brought before the
      reduced as a result of cooperation consisting to a large             Court of Justice of the European Communities on 31 May
      extent in implicating the other cartel participants and              2002 by Isoplus Fernwärmetechnik Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH,
      exaggerating their participation, where several of the               Isoplus Fernwärmetechnik Gesellschaft mbH and Isoplus
      other undertakings involved at ABB’s instigation and                 Fernwärmetechnik GmbH, represented by P. Krömer and
      retained in the cartel were forced after the Cartel case to          F. Nusterer, Rechtsanwälte, with an address for service in
      withdraw from the market.                                            Luxembourg.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 April 2005 in Case C-460/01: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Regulations (EEC) Nos 2913/92 and 2454/93 — External Community transit procedure — Customs authorities — Procedures for collecting import duties — Time-limits — Non-compliance — Community own resources — Making available — Time-limit — Non-compliance — Default interest — Member State concerned — Default on payment)

text:
               28.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 132/1

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 14 April 2005
   in Case C-460/01: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Regulations (EEC) Nos 2913/92 and 2454/93 - External Community transit procedure - Customs authorities - Procedures for collecting import duties - Time-limits - Non-compliance - Community own resources - Making available - Time-limit - Non-compliance - Default interest - Member State concerned - Default on payment)
   (2005/C 132/01)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case C-460/01, Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Wilms and H.M.H. Speyart) v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agent: H.G. Sevenster) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 28 November 2001 — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), Judges; C- Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 April 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that between 1 January 1991 and 31 December 1995:

                           —

                           by failing to proceed with the entry in the accounts of the customs debt and other relevant duties and communicate the amount thereof to the debtor within three days of the time-limit laid down in Articles 3(3) and 6(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1854/89 of 14 June 1989 on the entry in the accounts and terms of payment of the amounts of the import duties or export duties resulting from a customs debt, and in Articles 218(3) and 221(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, or at a later date pursuant to Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1182/71 of the Council of 3 June 1971 determining the rules applicable to periods, dates and time-limits, when the principal of an external Community transit operation has not, within three months of being notified by the office of departure that the consignment has not been presented on time at the office of destination, provided proof of the regularity of the transit operation in question,

                           —

                           by failing to make available in due time to the Commission the relevant Community own resources, and

                           —

                           by refusing to pay the relevant default interest,

                     the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 11a(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1062/87 of 27 March 1987 on provisions for the implementation of the Community transit procedure and for certain simplifications of that procedure, as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2560/92 of 2 September 1992, the third sentence of Article 49(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1214/92 of 21 April 1992 on provisions for the implementation of the Community transit procedure and for certain simplifications of that procedure, as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3712/92 of 21 December 1992, and the third sentence of Article 379(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, and under Articles 2, 9, 10 and 11 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom, on the system of the Communities own resources;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 84 of 06.04.2002.


title: Case T-51/00: Action brought on 23 March 2000 by Mario Costacurta against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 149/36               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     27.5.2000
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             Action brought on 23 March 2000 by Mario Costacurta
                                                                          against the Commission of the European Communities
— annul in whole or in part the Commission’s decision of
     8 December 1998 in Case IV/E-1/35.860-B — seamless
     steel tubes                                                                                (Case T-51/00)
— in the alternative, annul or reduce the fine imposed on the                                     (2000/C 149/69)
     applicant;
— order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 23 March 2000 by Mario Costacur-
The applicant has been accused of participation in an agree-            ta, residing in Luxembourg, represented by Marc Petit, Avocat,
ment involving European and Japanese producers of seamless              Luxembourg.
steel tubes in connection with the so-called Europe-Japan Club,
an agreement providing, inter alia, for protection of national
markets in standard edged and ‘linepipe project’ OCTG (Oil
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
Country Tubular Goods) tubes. The applicant is further
accused, as part of the same infringement, of participating in a
further agreement between European producers only, con-                 — annul the decision impliedly rejecting the applicant’s
sisting in the sharing out of the supply of smooth OCTG tubes                complaint concerning his request for communication
to British Steel.                                                            of the document embodying the appointing authority’s
                                                                             decision appointing him with effect from 1 September
                                                                             1996 to the Planning, contracts and general services unit
In support of its claims, the applicant alleges the following
                                                                             of the Office for Official Publications of the European
defects:
                                                                             Communities in Luxembourg;
— Procedural infringement during the administrative phase,
     concerning, inter alia, the inadmissibility of certain ques-       — annul the decision of the appointing authority of the Office
     tions put to the applicant by the Commission during its                 for Official Publications of the European Communities of
     investigation, the handling of confidentiality and the                  15 May 1998 assigning the applicant to the Coedition and
     failure of certain documents annexed to the Statement of                copyright unit in Luxembourg on the grounds that it is
     Objections to correspond with the documents used in the                 based on an act which either does not exist or is not in
     decision.                                                               conformity with the Staff Regulations;
— Infringement of Article 81 of the Treaty and of the                   — order the Commission of the European Communities to
     legitimate expectations of the applicant in relation to the             pay all costs and fees incurred in the proceedings;
     inclusion in the contested decision of descriptions of fact
     not contained in the objections sent to the undertakings.
                                                                        — note that the applicant reserves his rights in respect of all
— Failure to act, contradictoriness in reasoning, and infringe-              other rights, entitlements, pleadings and actions, including
     ment of Article 81 of the Treaty in relation to the market              those relating to damages.
     analysis and the commercial conduct of Dalmine, the
     alleged unlawfulness of the supply contracts for the United
     Kingdom and the restrictive nature of the agreement in the
     context of the Europe-Japan Club.                                  Pleas in law and main arguments
Specifically concerning the supply contracts for the United
                                                                        The applicant contests the Commission’s decision rejecting the
Kingdom, the applicant states that its contract with British
                                                                        request which he submitted on 20 July 1999 for communi-
Steel, which was not the result of an agreement between
                                                                        cation of the official decision reassigning him with effect from
European producers, largely concerns products which do not
                                                                        1 September 1996 to the Official Publications Office in
fall within the relevant market as defined by the Commission.
                                                                        Luxembourg.
Moreover, the applicant did not participate in any horizontal
agreement with other European producers for the sharing out
of supply in the United Kingdom.
                                                                        In support of his action he maintains that that decision:
                                                                        — infringes Articles 2, 3 and 25 of the Staff Regulations;
 ---pagebreak--- 27.5.2000             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 149/37
— infringes Article 101a of the Staff Regulations, as well as           Action brought on 12 March 2000 by Bond van de
    the principle of the hierarchy of appointing authorities and        Fegarbel-Beroepsverenigingen against the Commission of
    the principle of the hierarchy of rules;                                              the European Communities
— breaches the principle of protection of legitimate expec-                                      (Case T-58/00)
    tations; and
                                                                                (2000/C 149/71)
— is vitiated by misuse of powers and failure to comply with
    proper procedure.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 12 March 2000 by Bond van de
                                                                        Fegarbel-Beroepsverenigingen, a non-profit-making associ-
Action brought on 14 March 2000 by AB Banan-Kompani-                    ation under Belgian law, established in Brussels, and two other
et and Skandinaviska Bananimporten AB against the                       applicants, represented by J. van Hoof, of the Brussels Bar,
Council of the European Union and the Commission of                     with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                 the European Communities                               F. Brouxel.
                                                                        The applicants claim that the Court should:
                         (Case T-57/00)
                                                                        — annul Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 of 22 December
                        (2000/C 149/70)                                      1999 in so far as, whether or not in conjunction with the
                                                                             White Paper, infringements are to have no retroactive
                                                                             effect and/or Article 4 failed to include abuses attributable
                  (Language of the case: English)                            to economic dependence;
                                                                        — in the alternative: set aside the consultation procedure and
An action against the Council of the European Union and the
                                                                             order that this be repeated in a transparent manner, and
Commission of the European Communities was brought
                                                                             that a statement of position be requested in regard to the
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                             abolition of the retroactive effects of automatic nullity
on 14 March 2000 by AB Banan-Kompaniet, Stockholm and
                                                                             provided for in Article 81(2) EC, and the consequences of
Skandinaviska Bananimporten AB, Arsta (Sweden) represented
                                                                             the modernisation programme for the situation of small
by Bernard O’Connor, Solicitor.
                                                                             and medium-sized undertakings and consumers, as well as
                                                                             economic dependence in general and economic depen-
The applicants claim that the Court should:                                  dence by virtue of cumulative effect in particular;
— require the Commission and the Council, pursuant to                   — order the Commission to pay costs.
    Articles 178 and 215 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 235
    EC and 288 EC), to pay the applicants damages in respect
    of the loss suffered by them by reason of the unlawful              Pleas in law and main arguments
    adoption of Council Decision 94/800 and Commission
    Regulation (EC) No 478/95.                                          The Bond van de Fegarbel-Beroepsverenigingen is an associ-
                                                                        ation which safeguards the interests of the regional associations
                                                                        of garage owners and their members.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        This application seeks the annulment of Commission Regu-
The applicants are part of the Saba Group of companies and              lation (EC) No 2790/1999 of 22 December 1999 on the
are engaged in the purchase, import and sale of bananas in              application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of
Scandinavia. They were entitled to Category A banana import             vertical agreements and concerted practices (OJ 1999 L 336,
licences and imported bananas from Colombia and Costa Rica.             p. 21).
Their application concerns the damage suffered by them as a
result of having to purchase export licences in the period 1995
                                                                        This regulation forms part of a European Commission pro-
to 1998 in order to enable them to exercise their rights to             gramme for the modernisation of the application of the
obtain import licences.
                                                                        Community rules on competition. Within the context of this
                                                                        programme, the applicants also refer to the Green Paper on
The pleas in law and main arguments raised by the applicants            vertical restraints on competition (COM(96) 721 def.), the
are similar to those put forward in Case T-56/00.                       White Paper on modernisation of the competition rules (OJ
                                                                        1999 C 132), Regulation (EC) No 1216/1999 amending
                                                                        Regulation No 17 (OJ 1999 L 148, p. 5), and the Guidelines
                                                                        on Vertical Restraints (OJ 1999 C 270, p. 12).


title: Case T-195/06: Action brought on 18 July 2006 — Solvay Solexis SpA v Commission

text:
               2.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/43

         Action brought on 18 July 2006 — Solvay Solexis SpA v Commission
   (Case T-195/06)
   (2006/C 212/74)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Solvay Solexis SpA (represented by: Tommaso Salonico and Gian Luca Zampa, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision in part, in particular Articles 1, 2 and 3 thereof, and reduce the penalty imposed on Solexis accordingly;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the applicant's costs with regard to the payment in whole or in part of the penalty or in respect of provision of the bank guarantee.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The contested decision in this case is the same as that in Case T-185/06 L'Air Liquide v Commission. That decision laid down that Solexis is jointly and severally liable with Edison SpA for a fine of EUR 25 619 million. The applicant's liability derives exclusively from the conduct of the company Ausimont SA which, at the time of the facts, was subject to sole control by Edison.
   In support of its claims, the applicant argues that the penalty imposed on it by the decision which is the subject-matter of the action should be regarded as wrongly set, owing to:

               —

               incorrect assessment of the duration of the infringement, which took place from May/September 1997 to May 2000 and not, as regards the applicant itself, from May 1995 to December 2000;

               —

               incorrect assessment concerning the main effect on and application to the market of the infringement and of the passive role played by the applicant, in the period from May 1995 to May/September 1997 inclusive;

               —

               non-participation of the applicant in the agreement on the limitation of capacity. When imposing the penalty the Commission disregarded the fact that Ausimont never joined, either in 1997 or subsequently, the agreement on the restriction/limitation of production capacity. The infringement attributable to Ausimont is therefore less serious than that committed by other undertakings on account of its lesser effect on competition, and also in accordance with the fundamental principles of equal treatment, fairness and proportionality;

               —

               failure to take into account its cooperation. In fact the defendant did not grant the applicant any benefit with regard to its cooperation, or as a result of its participation in the leniency programme, or in respect of the mitigating circumstance provided for by the Guidelines.

         Finally, the applicant claims infringement of the principle of proportionality.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 December 2003 in Case T-65/99: Strintzis Lines Shipping SA v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Regulation (EEC) No 4056/86 — Investigations carried out at company premises other than those of the company to which the investigation decision is addressed Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) — State regulation on maritime transport and the practice of State authorities — Applicability of Article 85 of the Treaty — Whether infringing conduct may be imputed — Fines — Application of the guidelines on calculating fines)

text:
20.3.2004              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 71/21
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                      of 11 December 2003                                                       of 11 December 2003
in Case T-65/99: Strintzis Lines Shipping SA v Com-                       in Case T-66/99: Minoan Lines SA v Commission of the
          mission of the European Communities (1)                                            European Communities (1)
(Competition — Regulation (EEC) No 4056/86 — Investi-                     (Competition — Regulation (EEC) No 4056/86 — Investi-
gations carried out at company premises other than those of               gations carried out at company premises other than those of
the company to which the investigation decision is addressed              the company to which the investigation decision is addressed
Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) —                   — Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) —
State regulation on maritime transport and the practice of                State regulation on maritime transport and the practice of
State authorities — Applicability of Article 85 of the Treaty             State authorities — Applicability of Article 85 of the Treaty
— Whether infringing conduct may be imputed — Fines —                     — Whether infringing conduct may be imputed — Fines —
      Application of the guidelines on calculating fines)                       Application of the guidelines on calculating fines)
                          (2004/C 71/36)                                                            (2004/C 71/37)
                    (Language of the case: Greek)                                             (Language of the case: Greek)
In Case T-65/99, Strintzis Lines Shipping SA, established in
Piraeus (Greece), represented by K. Adamantopoulos, V. Akriti-            In Case T-66/99, Minoan Lines SA, established in Heraklion
dis and A. Papakrivopoulos, lawyers, with an address for                  (Greece), represented by I. Soufleros, lawyer, with an address
service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the European                       for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: R. Lyal, D. Triantafyllou and G. Athan-              Communities (Agents: R. Lyal, D. Triantafyllou and A. Oikono-
assiou): Application for annulment of Commission Decision                 mou): Application for annulment of Commission Decision
1999/271/EC of 9 December 1998 relating to a proceeding                   1999/271/EC of 9 December 1998 relating to a proceeding
pursuant to Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/34.466 Greek                  pursuant to Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/34.466 Greek
Ferries) (OJ 1999 L 109, p. 24), the Court of First Instance              Ferries) (OJ 1999 L 109, p. 24), the Court of First Instance
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: J.D. Cooke, President, R. García-           (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J.D. Cooke, President, R. García-
Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for          Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 December 2003, in               the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 December 2003, in
which it:                                                                 which it:
1.    Dismisses the application;                                          1.    Dismisses the application;
2.    Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay those         2.    Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay those
      incurred by the Commission.                                               incurred by the Commission.
(1) OJ C 136 of 15.5.1999.                                                (1) OJ C 136 of 15.5.1999.


title: Case C-416/07: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directives 91/628/EEC and 93/119/EC — Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 — Protection of animals during transport and at the time of slaughter or killing — Structural and general infringement of Community rules)

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/10

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-416/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directives 91/628/EEC and 93/119/EC - Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 - Protection of animals during transport and at the time of slaughter or killing - Structural and general infringement of Community rules)
   2009/C 267/17
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Tserepa-Lacombe and F. Erlbacher, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: S. Charitaki, S. Papaïoannou and E.-M. Mamouna, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 5, 8, 9 and 18(2) of Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on the protection of animals during transport and amending Directives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC (OJ 1991 L 340, p. 17) — Infringement of Articles 5(4), 6(1), 13(3) and (4), 15(1), 25, 26 and 27(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1255/97 (OJ 2005 L 3, p. 1) — Infringement of Articles 3, 5(1), 6(1) and 8 of Council Directive 93/119/EC of 22 December 1993 on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing (OJ 1993 L 340, p. 21)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that by failing to take the measures necessary:

                           —

                           to ensure that the competent authorities carry out obligatory checks of route plans;

                           —

                           to provide for facilities in or in the immediate vicinity of ferry ports to enable animals to rest after unloading;

                           —

                           so as to ensure that the inspections of the means of transport and the animals are actually carried out;

                           —

                           to ensure that the rules on the stunning of animals at the time of slaughter are complied with, and

                           —

                           to ensure that inspections and controls in slaughterhouses are carried out in an appropriate manner,
                           the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first indent of Article 5(A)(2)(d)(i) and Article 8 of Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on the protection of animals during transport and amending Directives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 806/2003 of 14 April 2003, point 48.7(b) of Chapter VII of the Annex to that directive, as amended by Regulation No 806/2003, and Articles 3, 5(1)(d), 6(1) and 8 of Council Directive 93/119/EC of 22 December 1993 on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay two thirds of the costs. The Commission of the European Communities is ordered to pay one third of the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.


title: Case T-417/09: Action brought on 16 October 2009 — Poslovni Sistem Mercator v OHIM — Mercator Multihull (MERCATOR STUDIOS)

text:
               5.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/33

         Action brought on 16 October 2009 — Poslovni Sistem Mercator v OHIM — Mercator Multihull (MERCATOR STUDIOS)
   (Case T-417/09)
   2009/C 297/50
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Poslovni Sistem Mercator, d.d. (Ljubljana, Slovenia) (represented by: M. Curell Aguila and J. Güell Serra, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mercator Multihull, Inc. (Vancouver, Canada)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 July 2009 in case R 1031/2008-1;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark “MERCATOR STUDIOS”, for goods in class 42

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited: Slovenian trade mark registrations of the figurative mark “Mercator” registered for services in classes 35, 36, 39, 41 and 42, and for goods in classes 1-6, 8-11, 13-34; Slovenian trade mark registration of the figurative marks “Mercator Slovenska Košarica” registered for goods and services in classes 1-6, 8-11, 13-34, 39, 41, 43 and 44; International registrations of the mark “Mercator”, for goods in classes 1-6, 8-11, 13, 14, 16-18, 20-33, and for services in classes 36, 41 and 42

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Council Regulation No 40/94 (which became Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Council Regulation No 207/2009) as the Board of Appeal failed to make a global analysis of the relevant factors and instead rejected the opposition on the basis that the services are different, and incorrectly assessed the ground of opposition based on the latter legal provision.


title: Case C-60/06: Order of the President of the Court of 20 February 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerisches Landessozialgericht, Germany) — Grete Schlepps v Deutsche Rentenversicherung Oberbayern

text:
               24.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 128/26

         Order of the President of the Court of 20 February 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerisches Landessozialgericht, Germany) — Grete Schlepps v Deutsche Rentenversicherung Oberbayern
   (Case C-60/06) (1)

   (2008/C 128/47)

      Language of the case: German

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

      (1)  OJ C 131, 3.6.2006.


title: Case C-535/07: Action brought on 30 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/32

         Action brought on 30 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-535/07)
   (2008/C 51/55)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: R. Sauer and D. Recchia, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Austria
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing

                           (a)

                           in accordance with ornithological criteria correctly to designate or delimit (‘Hansag’ in the Province of Burgenland and ‘Niedere Tauern’ in the Province of Steiermark respectively) the most suitable areas in Austria in terms of numbers and size as special protection areas under Article 4(1) and (2) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, (1) and

                           (b)

                           to provide legal protection, in accordance with the requirements of Article 4(1) and (2) of Directive 79/409/EEC or Article 6(2) in conjunction with Article 7 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, (2) for part of the special protection areas already designated,

                     the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and (2) of Directive 79/409/EEC and Article 6(2) in conjunction with Article 7 of Directive 92/43/EEC;

               —

               order Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Article 4(1) and (2) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC (bird protection directive) requires the Member States to declare as special protection areas (SPAs) all those areas which are the most suitable territories in number and size for the conservation of the species listed in Annex I and to take similar measures for the conservation of regularly occurring migratory species not listed in Annex I to the Directive. An SPA is to be given a legal protection status that is appropriate, inter alia, to secure the survival and reproduction of the species listed in Annex I to the Directive and the breeding, moulting and wintering of regularly occurring migratory species not listed in Annex I to the Directive. Since, under Article 7 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (fauna and flora directive), obligations arising, inter alia, under Article 6(2) of that directive in respect of special areas of conservation are to replace the obligations under the first sentence of Article 4(1) of the bird protection directive, the legal protection status of those areas must also ensure that there is no deterioration of the natural habitats of the species for which the areas have been designated and no significant disturbance of those species.
   The Republic of Austria has infringed its obligations under those Community law provisions by failing to designate the ‘Hansag’ area as an SPA, delimit the ‘Niedere Tauern’ special protection area in accordance with the requirements of the bird protection directive, and provide part of the existing special protection areas with the legal protection required by the above provisions.
   Although the Republic of Austria has recognised the need to designate ‘Hansag’ as an SPA and has, on several occasions, confirmed its intention to do so, it has not complied with its designation obligation within the period laid down in the reasoned opinion.
   The failure to delimit the ‘Niedere Tauern’ area in accordance with the requirements of the bird protection directive relates to the failure to have sufficient regard to the necessary habitat of the dotterel and the inadequate inclusion of the established habitats of certain woodland bird species, namely the grey-headed woodpecker (picus canus) and the hazel hen (Bonasa bonasia). Although the Member States enjoy some latitude in the selection and delimitation of SPAs, it is limited by the requirement that the delimitation of those areas must comply with particular ornithological criteria laid down in the Directive. In particular, when selecting and delimiting an SPA, a Member State is not entitled to take into account the economic requirements referred to in Article 2 of the bird protection directive or Article 6(4) of the fauna and flora directive.
   As regards the legal protection status of the protection areas already designated in Austria, special conservation measures are necessary for each bird fauna designated in an area that satisfies the criteria for designation as an SPA, and it is also necessary to establish with precision the necessary conservation measures and adapt them to the specific features and environmental conditions of the BSG and the species living there. The specific conservation aims contained in the legal protection instruments for the purposes of Article 4(1) and (2) of the bird protection directive and Article 6(2) of the fauna and flora directive for each bird species in question, together with the necessary concrete measures and conditions (prohibitions and requirements) for the area should also be binding and given adequate publicity. After an examination of the rules existing in the individual provinces, it has been found that the legal protection status does not comply with the above requirements and thus can not be regarded as adequate when measured against the provisions of the bird protection directive and the fauna and flora directive.

      (1)  OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7.


title: Case T-35/16: Action brought on 21 January 2016 — Sony Computer Entertainment Europe v OHIM — Vieta Audio (Vita)

text:
               21.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/42

         Action brought on 21 January 2016 — Sony Computer Entertainment Europe v OHIM — Vieta Audio (Vita)
   (Case T-35/16)
   (2016/C 106/49)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Vieta Audio, SA (Barcelona, Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Vita’ — Community trade mark registration No 9 993 361

      Procedure before OHIM: Revocation proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 November 2015 in Case R 2232/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM and the other party to pay their own costs and those of the applicant.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-333/08: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 January 2010 — European Commission v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Free movement of goods — Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — Quantitative restriction on imports — Measure having equivalent effect — Prior authorisation scheme — Processing aids, and foodstuffs whose preparation involved the use of processing aids, from other Member States where they are lawfully manufactured and/or marketed — Procedure allowing economic operators to obtain the entry of such substances on a positive list — Mutual recognition clause — National legislative context creating a situation of legal uncertainty for economic operators)

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/8

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 January 2010 — European Commission v French Republic
   (Case C-333/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Free movement of goods - Articles 28 EC and 30 EC - Quantitative restriction on imports - Measure having equivalent effect - Prior authorisation scheme - Processing aids, and foodstuffs whose preparation involved the use of processing aids, from other Member States where they are lawfully manufactured and/or marketed - Procedure allowing economic operators to obtain the entry of such substances on a ‘positive list’ - Mutual recognition clause - National legislative context creating a situation of legal uncertainty for economic operators)
   2010/C 63/12
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky, Agent)

      Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and R. Loosli-Surrans, Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 28 EC — Scheme of prior authorisation for processing aids, and foodstuffs the preparation of which involved the use of processing aids, from other Member States where they were lawfully manufactured and/or marketed — Lack of justification and/or non-compliance with the principle of proportionality

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               By laying down, for processing aids and foodstuffs whose preparation involved the use of processing aids from other Member States where they are lawfully manufactured and/or marketed, a prior authorisation scheme not complying with the principle of proportionality, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC.

               2.

               The French Republic is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 285, 8.11.2008.


title: Joined Cases T-694/13 and T-2/15: Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2016 — Ipatau v Council (Common Foreign and Security Policy — Restrictive measures against Belarus — Freezing of funds and economic resources — Restrictions on the entry into and transit through European Union territory — Retention of the applicant’s name on the list of persons concerned — Rights of the defence — Obligation to state reasons — Error of assessment — Proportionality)

text:
               16.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 14/30

         Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2016 — Ipatau v Council
   (Joined Cases T-694/13 and T-2/15) (1)

   ((Common Foreign and Security Policy - Restrictive measures against Belarus - Freezing of funds and economic resources - Restrictions on the entry into and transit through European Union territory - Retention of the applicant’s name on the list of persons concerned - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state reasons - Error of assessment - Proportionality))
   (2017/C 014/35)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Vadzim Ipatau (Minsk, Belarus) (represented by: M. Michalauskas, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: F. Naert and B. Driessen, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Council Decision 2013/534/CFSP of 29 October 2013 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (OJ 2013 L 288, p. 69), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1054/2013 of 29 October 2013 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2013 L 288, p. 1), Council Decision 2014/750/CFSP of 30 October 2014 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (OJ 2014 L 311, p. 39) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1159/2014 of 30 October 2014 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2014 L 311, p. 2), in so far as they concern the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the actions;

               2.

               Orders Mr Vadzim Ipatau to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 93, 29.3.2014.


title: Case C-192/13 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 September 2014 — Kingdom of Spain v European Commission (Appeal — Cohesion fund — Reduction of the financial assistance — Adoption of the decision by the European Commission — Existence of a time-limit — Failure to comply with the time-limit — Consequences)

text:
               10.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 395/14

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 September 2014 — Kingdom of Spain v European Commission
      (Case C-192/13 P) (1)

      ((Appeal - Cohesion fund - Reduction of the financial assistance - Adoption of the decision by the European Commission - Existence of a time-limit - Failure to comply with the time-limit - Consequences))
      (2014/C 395/16)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Appellant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, acting as Agent)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1)

                  Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Spain v Commission (T-235/11, EU:T:2013:49);

                  2)

                  Annuls Commission Decision C(2011) 1023 final of 18 February 2011 reducing the assistance granted from the Cohesion Fund to the stages of projects entitled ‘Supply and assembly of track materials on the high-speed line Madrid-Zaragoza-Barcelona-French border. Section Madrid-Lleida’ (CCI 1999.ES.16.C.PT.001), ‘High-speed railway line Madrid-Barcelona. Section Lleida Martorell (Platform, 1st phase)’ (CCI 2000.ES.16.C.PT.001), ‘High-speed line Madrid-Zaragoza-Barcelona-French border. Railway access to the new station at Zaragoza’ (CCI 2000.ES.16.C.PT.003), ‘High-speed line Madrid-Barcelona-French border. Section Lleida-Martorell. Subsection X-A (Olérdola-Avinyonet del Penedés)’ (CCI 2001.ES.16.C.PT.007), ‘New high-speed railway access to Levante. Subsection La Gineta-Albacete (Platform)’ (CCI 2004.ES.16.C.PT.014);

                  3)

                  Orders the European Commission to pay the costs of the Kingdom of Spain and to bear its own costs of both the proceedings at first instance and of the present appeal proceedings.

         (1)  OJ C 178, 22.6.2013.


title: Case C-402/02: Action brought on 12 November 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
C 323/28               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        21.12.2002
      provided evidence in that respect, so much so that in             nition of diplomas obtained in other Member States, as
      their reply to the reasoned opinion they make no mention          provided by those two directives.
      whatever of that matter.
                                                                        The arrangements for assimilation under decrees, which do
( 1) OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39.                                              not take account of Directives 89/48 and 92/51, rely only on
( 2) OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32.
( 3) OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1.
                                                                        the examination of diplomas submitted by candidates who are
                                                                        holders of such diplomas and make no provision for the taking
                                                                        into account of any experience acquired in the course of
                                                                        pursuing the profession to make up for any difference with
                                                                        respect to duration or content of training leading to the award
                                                                        of such diplomas. However, Member States are obliged to take
                                                                        into account any professional experience which candidates
Action brought on 12 November 2002 by the Com-                          may possess for the purposes of assimilating a diploma
mission of the European Communities against the French                  obtained in another Member State and access to the regulated
                             Republic                                   profession in question.
                          (Case C-402/02)
                                                                        (1 ) Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general
                                                                             system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded
                          (2002/C 323/41)
                                                                             on completion of professional education and training of at least
                                                                             three years’ duration (OJ 1988 L 19, p. 16) .
                                                                        (2 ) Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general
An action against the French Republic was brought before the                 system for the recognition of professional education and training
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 12 Novem-                    to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 25) .
ber 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by M. Patakia and D. Martin, acting as Agents,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should :
—     Declare that, by failing to bring into force, in order to         Action brought on 12 November 2002 by the Com-
      grant access to the profession of teacher specialising in         mission of the European Communities against the United
      the hospital public service or, on the other hand, in the                                         Kingdom
      national public service, a procedure for the mutual
      recognition of diplomas and by retaining national legis-
      lation and practice of the committee for the assimilation                                     (Case C-405/02)
      of diplomas which takes no account of the professional
      experience of migrant workers, the French Republic has                                        (2002/C 323/42)
      failed to fulfil its obligations under Directives 89/48/
      EEC (1) and 92/51/EEC ( 2) and Article 39 EC Treaty; and
—     Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                        An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the
                                                                        Court of Justice of the European Communities on 12 Novem-
                                                                        ber 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         represented by Maria Patakia and Karen Banks, acting as
                                                                        agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
A profession is a regulated profession in a Member State
within the meaning of Directives 89/48 and 92/51 where it is
authorised in that Member State and access thereto or the               The Applicant claims that the Court should:
pursuit thereof is reserved to persons who, directly or
indirectly, meet the statutory conditions governing the rules of        (1) declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations
that profession. The fact that access to a similar profession in               and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
the private or associative sector is not subject to the same                   Directive 1999/42/EC of the European Parliament and of
condition is irrelevant in that regard. Likewise, the statement                the Council of 7 June 1999 on the establishment of a
made by the French authorities in their reply to the reasoned                  mechanism for the recognition of qualifications in respect
opinion that a profession is not ‘regulated’ unless it is subjected            of the professional activities covered by the Directives on
to a condition regarding the conferment of a diploma arising                   liberalisation and transitional measures and sup-
from a legislative provision of general application is erroneous               plementing the general systems for the recognition of
in law. Since Directives 89/48 and 92/51 are applicable                        qualifications ( 1), or in any event by failing to communi-
inasmuch as they concern access to the regulated profession                    cate them to the Commission, the United Kingdom has
of teachers specialising in the hospital public service and in                 failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive;
the national civil service, it is incumbent on the French
authorities to provide for a procedure for the mutual recog-            (2) order the United Kingdom to pay the costs of this action.


title: Case C-441/04: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of  23 February 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Klagenfurt) — A-Punkt Schmuckhandels GmbH v Claudia Schmidt (Free movement of goods — Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — Measures having equivalent effect — Doorstep selling — Sale of silver jewellery — Prohibition)

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/18

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 February 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Klagenfurt) — A-Punkt Schmuckhandels GmbH v Claudia Schmidt
   (Case C-441/04) (1)

   (Free movement of goods - Articles 28 EC and 30 EC - Measures having equivalent effect - Doorstep selling - Sale of silver jewellery - Prohibition)
   (2006/C 131/32)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Landesgericht Klagenfurt (Austria)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: A-Punkt Schmuckhandels GmbH

      Defendant: Claudia Schmidt
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landesgericht Klagenfurt — Interpretation of Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — National legislation prohibiting the door-to-door sale of gold, silver and platinum jewellery
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 28 EC does not preclude a national provision by which a Member State prohibits in its territory the selling of, and collecting of orders for, silver jewellery in a doorstep-selling situation where such a provision applies to all relevant traders in so far as it affects in the same manner, in law and in fact, the marketing of domestic products and that of products from other Member States. It is for the national court to ascertain whether, having regard to the circumstances in the main proceedings, the application of the national provision is liable to prevent the access to the market of products from other Member States or to impede that access more than it impedes the access to the market of domestic products and, if that is the case, to determine whether the measure concerned is justified by an objective in the general interest within the meaning given to that concept in the Court's case-law or by one of the objectives listed in Article 30 EC, and whether that measure is proportionate to that objective.

      (1)  OJ C 314, 18.12.2004.


title: Case F-103/11: Action brought on 11 October 2011 — ZZ v EIB

text:
               7.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/25

         Action brought on 11 October 2011 — ZZ v EIB
   (Case F-103/11)
   2012/C 6/46
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: N. Thieltgen, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Investment Bank

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of the President of the EIB not to take any action following the inquiry concerning alleged psychological harassment and to annul the final conclusion of the committee of inquiry and the claim for damages.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the final conclusion of the committee of inquiry in its Opinion of 11 July 2011 in so far as it states that there are no facts that can be classified as harassment in respect of the applicant;

               —

               annul the decision of the President of the EIB of 27 July 2011;

               —

               find that she was and is the victim of harassment;

               —

               direct the EIB to put an end to that harassment;

               —

               annul the decision of the President of the EIB of 1 September 2011;

               —

               find that there has been maladministration on the part of the EIB;

               —

               find that the EIB is liable vis-à-vis the applicant as regards the illegality of the decision of the President of the EIB of 27 July 2011, the harassment which she suffered and maladministration on the part of the EIB;

               —

               order the EIB to pay compensation for past and future physical, material and non-material damage caused to the applicant as a result of the illegality of the decision of the President of the EIB of 27 July 2011, the psychological harassment she suffered and maladministration on the part of the EIB, together with default interest;

               —

               with regard to the unlawfulness of the President’s letter of 27 July 2011:

                           —

                           material damage due to loss of earnings: EUR 113 100;

                           —

                           non-material damage: EUR 50 000

               —

               with regard to the psychological harassment she suffered:

                           —

                           material damage in respect of earnings and loss of career: EUR 132 100;

                           —

                           non-material damage: EUR 50 000;

                           —

                           associated costs: EUR 13 361,93;

               —

               with regard to maladministration on the part of the EIB:

                           —

                           breach by the EIB of its obligation of confidentiality and data protection: EUR 10 000;

                           —

                           incident regarding the examination of witnesses: EUR 40 000;

               —

               order the EIB to pay the costs.


title: Case C-22/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove (Slovakia) lodged on 17 January 2012 — Katarína Hassová v Rastislav Petrík, Blanka Holingová

text:
               31.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove (Slovakia) lodged on 17 January 2012 — Katarína Hassová v Rastislav Petrík, Blanka Holingová
   (Case C-22/12)
   2012/C 98/22
   Language of the case: Slovak

      Referring court

   Krajský súd v Prešove

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Katarína Hassová

      Defendants: Rastislav Petrík, Blanka Holingová

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 1(1) of Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, (1) in combination with Article 3(1) of Directive 72/166/EC, (2) be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law (such as § 4 of Law No 381/2001 on compulsory contractual insurance against liability for damage caused by the use of a motor vehicle, or § 6 of Law No 168/1999 [of the Czech Republic] on the same subject) according to which civil liability arising from the use of a motor vehicle does not cover non-material damage, expressed in financial form, caused to the survivors of the victims of a road accident caused by the use of a motor vehicle?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is that the above-mentioned rule of national law does not conflict with Community law, must the provisions of § 4(1), (2) and (4) of the said Law No 381/2001 and § 6 of the said Law No 168/1999 [of the Czech Republic] be interpreted as not precluding the national court, in conformity with Article 1(1) of Council Directive 90/232/EEC. in combination with Article 3(1) of Directive 72/166/EEC, from allowing a claim for non-material damage caused to the survivors of the victims of a road accident caused by the use of a motor vehicle, in the capacity of injured parties and in financial form?

      (1)  OJ 1990 L 129, p. 33.

      (2)  Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability — OJ 1972 L 103, p. 1.


title: Case C-368/09: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Baranya Megyei Bíróság — Hungary) — Pannon Gép Centrum Kft v APEH Központi Hivatal Hatósági Főosztály Dél-dunántúli Kihelyezett Hatósági Osztály (Sixth VAT Directive — Directive 2006/112/EC — Right to deduct input tax — National legislation penalising an error in the invoice by loss of the right to deduct)

text:
               11.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/11

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Baranya Megyei Bíróság — Hungary) — Pannon Gép Centrum Kft v APEH Központi Hivatal Hatósági Főosztály Dél-dunántúli Kihelyezett Hatósági Osztály
   (Case C-368/09) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Directive 2006/112/EC - Right to deduct input tax - National legislation penalising an error in the invoice by loss of the right to deduct)
   2010/C 246/18
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Baranya Megyei Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Pannon Gép Centrum Kft

      Defendant: APEH Központi Hivatal Hatósági Főosztály Dél-dunántúli Kihelyezett Hatósági Osztály

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Baranya Megyei Biróság — Interpretation of Articles 17(1), 18(1) and 22(3)(a) and (b) of Directive 77/388/EEC: Sixth Council Directive 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 assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), and of Council Directive 2001/115/EC of 20 December 2001 amending Directive 77/388/EEC with a view to simplifying, modernising and harmonising the conditions laid down for invoicing in respect of value added tax (OJ 2002 L 15, p. 24) — Loss of the right to deduct for a recipient of services by reason of an error in the completion date of the works referred to in the invoice issued by the provider — National rules penalising any formal defect in the invoice by the loss of the right to deduct

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 167, 178(a), 220(1) and 226 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding national legislation or practice whereby the national authorities deny to a taxable person the right to deduct from the VAT which he is liable to pay the VAT due or paid in respect of services supplied to him on the grounds that the initial invoice, in the possession of the taxable person when the deduction is made, contained an incorrect completion date for the supply of services and the numbering of the subsequently corrected invoice and the credit note cancelling the initial invoice were not sequential, if the material conditions governing deduction are satisfied and, before the tax authority concerned has made a decision, the taxable person has submitted to the tax authority a corrected invoice stating the correct date on which that supply of services was completed, even though the numbering of that invoice and the credit note cancelling the initial invoice are not sequential.

      (1)  OJ C 11, 16.1.2010.


title: Case C-398/09: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark)) — Lady & Kid A/S, Direct Nyt ApS, A/S Harald Nyborg Isenkram- og Sportsforretning, KID-Holding A/S v Skatteministeriet (Refusal to reimburse a tax paid in error — Unjust enrichment arising from the link between the introduction of that tax and the abolition of other taxes)

text:
               22.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/7

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark)) — Lady & Kid A/S, Direct Nyt ApS, A/S Harald Nyborg Isenkram- og Sportsforretning, KID-Holding A/S v Skatteministeriet
   (Case C-398/09) (1)

   (Refusal to reimburse a tax paid in error - Unjust enrichment arising from the link between the introduction of that tax and the abolition of other taxes)
   2011/C 311/08
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Østre Landsret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Lady & Kid A/S, Direct Nyt ApS, A/S Harald Nyborg Isenkram- og Sportsforretning, KID-Holding A/S

      Defendant: Skatteministeriet

      Re:

   Reference for preliminary ruling — Østre Landsret — Interpretation of the judgment of the Court in Joined Cases C-192/95 to C-218/95 Comateb and Others and of the principles of Community law governing unjust enrichment — Refusal to reimburse a national tax held to be incompatible with Community law, on grounds of unjust enrichment arising from the direct link between the introduction of the unlawful tax and the abolishment of other taxes charged on another basis — Non-reimbursement having the effect of placing product importers at a disadvantage in relation to purchasers of similar domestic products due to the proportionally greater payment of the unlawful tax by the former as compared to the latter.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The rules of European Union law on recovery of sums wrongly paid must be interpreted to the effect that recovery of sums wrongly paid can give rise to unjust enrichment only when the amounts wrongly paid by a taxpayer under a tax levied in a Member State in breach of European Union law have been passed on direct to the purchaser. Consequently, European Union law precludes a Member State from refusing reimbursement of a tax wrongfully levied on the ground that the amounts wrongly paid by the taxpayer have been set off by a saving made as a result of the concomitant abolition of other levies, since such a set-off cannot be regarded, from the point of view of European Union law, as an unjust enrichment as regards that tax.

      (1)  OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.


title: Judgment of the Court of 21 January 2003 in Case C-378/00: Commission of the European Communities v European Parliament and Council of the European Union (Comitology — Council Decision 1999/468/EC laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission — Criteria for choosing between the different procedures for adopting implementing measures — Effects — Obligation to state reasons — Annulment in part of Regulation (EC) No 1655/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Financial Instrument for the Environment (LIFE))

text:
8.3.2003                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                C 55/3
des Dauphins and Newcastle United Football Company Ltd,                      powers conferred on the Commission (OJ 1999 L 184, p. 23),
on the interpretation of Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now,                   the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President,
after amendment, Article 49 EC), the Court, composed of:                     J.-P. Puissochet and M. Wathelet (Presidents of Chambers),
G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet and                     C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur), P. Jann, V. Skouris,
M. Wathelet (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann,                            F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues,
D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann (Rapporteur), V. Skouris, F. Macken,                  Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Admin-
N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges;                   istrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 January
A. Tizzano, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Adminis-                 2003, in which it:
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 January
2003, in which it has ruled:                                                 1.    Annuls Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1655/2000 of
                                                                                the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 July 2000
The reference for a preliminary ruling made by the High Court of                   concerning the Financial Instrument for the Environment
Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division, by order of                  (LIFE);
28 July 2000 is inadmissible.
                                                                             2.    Declares that the measures for the implementation of Regulation
                                                                                No 1655/2000 already adopted at the time of the present
( 1) OJ C 302 of 21.10.2000.                                                       judgment are not affected by it;
                                                                             3.    Declares that the effects of Article 11(2) of Regulation
                                                                                No 1655/2000 are to be fully maintained until the Parliament
                                                                                and the Council adopt new provisions concerning the committee
                                                                                procedure to which the measures for the implementation of that
                                                                                regulation are subject;
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       4.    Orders the European Parliament and the Council of the
                                                                                European Union to pay the costs.
                        of 21 January 2003
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.
in Case C-378/00: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v European Parliament and Council of the European
                              Union ( 1)
(Comitology — Council Decision 1999/468/EC laying down                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers
conferred on the Commission — Criteria for choosing                                                   (Sixth Chamber)
between the different procedures for adopting implementing
measures — Effects — Obligation to state reasons —                                                   of 23 January 2003
Annulment in part of Regulation (EC) No 1655/2000 of the
European Parliament and of the Council concerning the
                                                                             In Joined Cases C-421/00, C-426/00 and C-16/01 (Refer-
       Financial Instrument for the Environment (LIFE))
                                                                             ence for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger
                                                                             Verwaltungssenat für Kärnten, the Unabhängiger Verwal-
                          (2003/C 55/05)                                     tungssenat Wien and Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Renate
                                                                                Sterbenz and Paul Dieter Haug (1)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                             (Approximation of laws — Articles 28 EC and 30 EC —
                                                                             Directive 79/112/EEC — Labelling and presentation of
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                                     foodstuffs)
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (2003/C 55/06)
In Case C-378/00, Commission of the European Communities                                        (Language of the case: German)
(Agent: D. Maidani) v European Parliament (Agents: C. Pennera
and M. Moore), and Council of the European Union (Agents:                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
J.-P. Jacqué and G. Houttuin) supported by United Kingdom of                                    in the European Court Reports)
Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: G. Amodeo, assisted
by M. Hoskins): Application for the annulment of Regulation
(EC) No 1655/2000 of the European Parliament and of the                      In Joined Cases C-421/00, C-426/00 and C-16/01: References
Council of 17 July 2000 concerning the Financial Instrument                  to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Unabhängiger
for the Environment (LIFE) (OJ 2000 L 192, p. 1), in so far as               Verwaltungssenat für Kärnten (Austria), the Unabhängiger
it makes the adoption of measures for the implementation of                  Verwaltungssenat Wien (Austria) and the Verwaltungsgerichts-
the LIFE programme subject to the regulatory procedure under                 hof (Austria) respectively for preliminary rulings in the
Article 5 of Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999                    criminal proceedings pending before those courts against
laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing                  Renate Sterbenz (C-421/00) and Paul Dieter Haug (C-426/00


title: Case T-228/02: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 2006 — Organisation des Modjahedines du peuple d'Iran v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism — Freezing of funds — Actions for annulment — Rights of the defence — Statement of reasons — Right to effective judicial protection — Action for damages)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/28

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 2006 — Organisation des Modjahedines du peuple d'Iran v Council
   (Case T-228/02) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism - Freezing of funds - Actions for annulment - Rights of the defence - Statement of reasons - Right to effective judicial protection - Action for damages)
   (2006/C 331/63)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Organisation des Modjahedines du peuple d'Iran (Auvers-sur-Oise, France) (represented by: J.-P. Spitzer, lawyer, D. Vaughan QC, and É. de Boissieu, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by M. Vitsentzatos and M. Bishop, Agents)
   Intervener in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: initially by J.E. Collins, and subsequently by R. Caudwell and C. Gibbs, Agents, assisted by S. Moore, Barrister)
   Re:
   Annulment of Council Decision 2002/460/EC of 17 June 2002 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2002/334/EC (OJ 2002 L 160, p. 26), of Council Common Position 2002/462/CFSP of 17 June 2002 updating Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism and repealing Common Position 2002/340/CFSP (OJ 2002 L 160, p. 32), and of Council Common Position 2002/340/CFSP of 2 May 2002 updating Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism (OJ 2002 L 116, p. 75), in so far as the applicant appears in the list of persons, groups and entities to which those provisions apply
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action as in part inadmissible and in part unfounded in so far as it seeks annulment of Common Position 2005/936/CFSP of 21 December 2005 updating Common Position 2001/931/CFSP and repealing Common Position 2005/847/CFSP;

               2.

               Annuls, in so far as it concerns the applicant, Council Decision 2005/930/EC of 21 December 2005 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2005/848/EC;

               3.

               Dismisses the claim for damages as inadmissible;

               4.

               Orders the Council to bear its own costs and to pay four fifths of the applicant's costs;

               5.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 247, 12.10.2002.


title: Case T-305/13: Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2015 — SACE and Sace BT v Commission (State aid — Export credit insurance — Reinsurance granted by a public undertaking to its subsidiary — Capital contributions to cover the subsidiary’s losses — Notion of State aid — Imputability to the State — Private investor test — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               10.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2015 — SACE and Sace BT v Commission
   (Case T-305/13) (1)

   ((State aid - Export credit insurance - Reinsurance granted by a public undertaking to its subsidiary - Capital contributions to cover the subsidiary’s losses - Notion of State aid - Imputability to the State - Private investor test - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2015/C 262/23)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicants: Servizi assicurativi del commercio estero SpA (SACE) (Rome, Italy); and Sace BT SpA (Rome) (represented by: M. Siragusa and G. Rizza, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Conte, D. Grespan and K. Walkerová, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicants: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, assisted by S. Fiorentino, avvocato dello Stato)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2014/525/EU of 20 March 2013 on the measures SA.23425 (11/C) (ex NN 41/10) implemented by Italy in 2004 and 2009 for SACE BT S.p.A. (OJ 2014 L 239, p. 24).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 2(2) of Commission Decision 2014/525/EU of 20 March 2013 on the measures SA.23425 (11/C) (ex NN 41/10) implemented by Italy in 2004 and 2009 for SACE BT S.p.A;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Servizi assicurativi del commercio estero SpA (SACE) and Sace BT shall bear their own costs, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings;

               4.

               The European Commission shall bear its own costs, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings;

               5.

               The Italian Republic shall bear its own costs, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.


title: Case T-45/09: Order of the General Court of 22 March 2010 — Al Barakaat International Foundation v Commission

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/51

         Order of the General Court of 22 March 2010 — Al Barakaat International Foundation v Commission
   (Case T-45/09) (1)

   2010/C 148/87

      Language of the case: Swedish

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

      (1)  OJ C 153, 4.7.2009.


title: Case C-114/12: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 September 2014 — European Commission v Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — External action of the European Union — International agreements — Protection of neighbouring rights of broadcasting organisations — Negotiations for a Convention of the Council of Europe — Decision of the Council and the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States authorising the joint participation of the Union and its Member States in the negotiations — Article 3(2) TFEU — Exclusive external competence of the Union)

text:
               10.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 395/2

      Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 September 2014 — European Commission v Council of the European Union
      (Case C-114/12) (1)

      ((Action for annulment - External action of the European Union - International agreements - Protection of neighbouring rights of broadcasting organisations - Negotiations for a Convention of the Council of Europe - Decision of the Council and the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States authorising the joint participation of the Union and its Member States in the negotiations - Article 3(2) TFEU - Exclusive external competence of the Union))
      (2014/C 395/02)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, P. Hetsch, L. Gussetti and J. Samnadda, Agents)

         Intervener in support of the applicant: European Parliament (represented by: R. Passos and D. Warin, Agents)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: H. Legal, J.-P. Hix, F. Florindo Gijón and M. Balta, Agents)

         Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, E. Ruffer, D. Hadroušek and J. Králová, Agents), Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze, B. Beutler and N. Graf Vitzthum, Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels and J. Langer, Agents), Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Szpunar, B. Majczyna, M. Drwięcki and E. Gromnicka initially, then by B. Majczyna, M. Drwięcki and E. Gromnicka, Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: C. Murrell, acting as Agent, assisted by R. Palmer, Barrister)

         Operative part

      The Court:

                  1)

                  Annuls the Decision of the Council and the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States meeting within the Council on the participation of the European Union and its Member States in negotiations for a Convention of the Council of Europe on the protection of the rights of broadcasting organisations, of 19 December 2011;

                  2)

                  Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;

                  3)

                  Orders the Czech Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Poland, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European Parliament to bear their own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 138, 12.5.2012.


title: Case F-64/13: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 30 June 2015 — Z v Court of Justice (Civil service — Officials — Staff report — Delay in drawing up staff report — Action for annulment — Action for compensation)

text:
               10.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/39

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 30 June 2015 — Z v Court of Justice
   (Case F-64/13) (1)

   ((Civil service - Officials - Staff report - Delay in drawing up staff report - Action for annulment - Action for compensation))
   (2015/C 262/52)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Z (represented by: F. Rollinger, lawyer)

      Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: A. V. Placco, agent)

      Re:

   Application to annul the applicant’s staff report for the period from 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2008, and an order that the defendant pay to the applicant a sum in compensation for the non-material damage suffered.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Z to bear her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Court of Justice of the European Union.

      (1)  OJ C 274, 21/9/2013, p. 30.