title: Case C-351/11: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen — Belgium) — KGH Belgium NV v Belgische Staat (Customs debt — Post-clearance recovery of import or export duties — Entry of duty in the accounts — Practical procedures)

text:
               12.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/18

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen — Belgium) — KGH Belgium NV v Belgische Staat
   (Case C-351/11) (1)

   (Customs debt - Post-clearance recovery of import or export duties - Entry of duty in the accounts - Practical procedures)
   2013/C 9/27
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: KGH Belgium NV

      Defendant: Belgische Staat

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen — Interpretation of Article 217(1) and (2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) — Post-clearance recovery of import or export duties — Entry in the accounts of the duties — Practical procedures

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 217(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 82/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996, must be interpreted as meaning that, since that article does not lay down any practical procedures for the entry in the accounts within the meaning of that provision, the Member States are free to determine the practical procedures for the entry in the accounts of amounts of duty resulting from a customs debt, without being under an obligation to determine, in their national legislation, how the entry in the accounts is to be made. That entry must be made in a way which ensures that the competent customs authorities enter the exact amount of the import duty or export duty resulting from a customs debt in the accounting records or on any other equivalent medium, so that, inter alia, the entry in the accounts of the amounts concerned may be established with certainty, including with regard to the person liable.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.


title: Case C-70/16 P: Appeal brought on 5 February 2016 by Comunidad Autónoma de Galicia and Redes de Telecomunicación Galegas Retegal, S.A. (Retegal) against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 26 November 2015 in Joined Cases T-463/13 and T-464/13 Comunidad Autónoma de Galicia and Retegal v Commission

text:
               4.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/19

         Appeal brought on 5 February 2016 by Comunidad Autónoma de Galicia and Redes de Telecomunicación Galegas Retegal, S.A. (Retegal) against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 26 November 2015 in Joined Cases T-463/13 and T-464/13 Comunidad Autónoma de Galicia and Retegal v Commission
   (Case C-70/16 P)
   (2016/C 118/21)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellants: Comunidad Autónoma de Galicia and Redes de Telecomunicación Galegas Retegal, S.A. (Retegal) (represented by: F. J. García Martínez and B. Pérez Conde, abogados)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission and SES Astra

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               declare admissible and well-founded the grounds relied on in the appeal;

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 26 November 2015, delivered in joined cases T-463/13 and T-464/13;

               —

               give a definitive ruling on the action for annulment, by upholding the claims made by the applicant at first instance against the contested Commission Decision (1) of 19 June 2013 on State aid SA.28599 (C 23/10 (ex NN 36/10, ex CP 163/09)) implemented by the Kingdom of Spain for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less urbanised areas (outside Castilla-La Mancha);

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs in the present proceedings.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

      First ground of appeal: Error of law consisting in the lack of consistency of the operative part of the judgment under appeal in view of the finding of errors in the contested decision, pointed out in the fourth plea in law of the application, in that it expressly characterised Retegal as the direct beneficiary of unlawful State aid and quantified the amount to be recovered

   By this ground of appeal, the appellants emphasise the clear inconsistency in the judgment under appeal, the operative part of which did not reflect the errors found in the contested decision (recitals 193 and 194 of the decision) relating to the specific situation of Galicia, consisting in the express characterisation of Retegal as the direct beneficiary of an unlawful State aid and the quantification of the amount to be recovered. Although the judgment under appeal (in paragraph 153) annuls the legally binding nature of that erroneous characterisation in the contested decision of Retegal as a direct beneficiary of the aid (in recital 193) and the erroneous quantification of the amount (in recital 194) to be recovered (in the operative part), a finding which the applicants support, the General Court does not repeat that express finding in the operative part, whereas the action sought the annulment of those erroneous determinations in the contested decision, which were correctly and specifically declared legally non-binding. Accordingly, for the purpose of internal consistency between the grounds of the judgment and the operative part, it is necessary to partially uphold the action, for logical reasons of legal certainty (in order to avoid subsequent conflicts concerning the interpretation of the scope of the contested decision at the recovery stage, as in the present case).

      Second ground of appeal: Error of law relating to the infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU, in that the judgment under appeal found that the requirements for the qualification of the activity in question as State aid were met

   By this ground of appeal, the parties seek the annulment of the judgment under appeal on the ground that the General Court erred in law by carrying out a review which did not comply with the criteria established by the case-law when verifying whether all the requirements for characterising the action of the Galician public authorities at issue as aid for the purpose of Article 107(1) TFEU were met. Despite the fact that the Commission acknowledged in the course of the proceedings that it did not have sufficient, reliable and comprehensive information in respect of the specific situation of Galicia, thus confirming the error of assessment criticised by the applicant at first instance, the judgment under appeal erroneously considered that the action of the Galician public authorities was not linked to the exercise of public power (public action necessary in view of the market failure in Zone II, in order to ensure that citizens could continue to receive the television signal after the abandonment of analogue television) but rather had an economic character. The General Court arrived at that conclusion because it failed to verify the substantive accuracy of the circumstances relied on by the Commission, in particular as regards the fact that the digital network of the municipal councils was not capable of commercial use, which is still the case. The General Court also committed an error when it confirmed the Commission’s presumption that it was possible to ‘provide other services’ distinct from the ‘DTT support services’ via the support infrastructure belonging to the municipal council, despite the fact that such commercial use is substantively and legally impossible.
   If a full review had been carried out of the specific elements of the case, in the manner required by the case-law invoked, the General Court would not have arrived at such a conclusion, since the infrastructure digitalised by the actions of the Galician public authorities in question could not be commercially exploited, as a result of its technical characteristics (a pylon and a hut), the level of equipment (TNT equipment only), and the applicable legal scheme (national legislation which only allows the national authorities to provide the service of transmitting the digital terrestrial television signal without remuneration), with the result that it cannot be considered that the measure falls within the scope of Article 107(1) TFEU.

      Third ground of appeal: Error of law consisting in the breach of the obligation to state reasons (Article 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court) and of Article 107(1) TFEU in that the General Court erred in its assessment of the selective character of the aid

   By this ground of appeal, the appellants submit that the judgment under appeal (paragraph 85) is vitiated, as regards the selective character attributed to the measure in question, by the same failure to state reasons and error of assessment as the contested decision (recital 113), in that, without analysing or dealing with the failure to state reasons and the error of assessment alleged in the application, the General Court merely confirmed — without expressing clearly and unambiguously its reasoning — the Commission’s position on that issue, thus not only failing to fulfil the duty to state reasons for judgments, but also failing to carry out the analysis of comparability necessary in order to be able to assess whether or not the aid has a selective character. If the General Court had not failed to carry out that obligatory analysis, it would have found that the situation of the municipal councils in Zone II in Galicia and that of other ‘undertakings using other technologies’, such as the intervener, are in no way comparable from a factual or legal point of view, since those other ‘undertakings’ neither provide nor are obliged to provide (under the conditions laid down in the national legislation: ‘without remuneration’) the service of transmitting the digital terrestrial television signal to citizens residing in Zone II in Galicia.

      Fourth ground of appeal: error of law in the interpretation of Articles 14 and 106(2) TFEU and Protocol (No 26) on Services of General Interest and the case-law interpreting them

   This ground of appeal is divided into three complaints, alleging an infringement of Articles 14 and 106(2) TFEU and Protocol (No 26) and the case-law interpreting them, in that the General Court in its judgment incorrectly interpreted those provisions of the TFEU referring to the SGEI. By the first complaint, the appellants submit that the judgment under appeal disregarded the Member States’ margin of discretion to define a SGEI, by carrying out an interpretation, applied to the present case, which ignores and renders meaningless that discretion. The official document empowering the public action in question contains a clear and precise definition of the public service mission, and meets all the requirements laid down by the case-law to be regarded as a valid SGEI. By the second complaint, the appellants submit that the General Court did not examine whether there was a manifest error in the definition of the public service and did not find that the definition given by the public authorities was manifestly erroneous, despite having found that the activity in question was clearly an activity that could be qualified as a SGEI from a substantive point of view. By the third complaint, the appellants submit that the General Court committed errors of law in the judgment under appeal by carrying out an erroneous interpretation of the national legislation as a result of which it did not consider that there was a clear and precise definition of the SGEI as required by the judgment in Altmark. (2)

      (1)  Commission Decision of 19 June 2013 on State aid SA.28599 (C 23/10 (ex NN 36/10, ex CP 163/09)) implemented by the Kingdom of Spain for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less urbanised areas (outside Castilla-La Mancha) (OJ L 217, p. 52).

      (2)  EU:C:2003:415


title: Case T-155/09: Order of the General Court of 8 March 2010 — Maxcom v OHIM — Maxdata Computer (maxcom) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               22.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/36

         Order of the General Court of 8 March 2010 — Maxcom v OHIM — Maxdata Computer (maxcom)
   (Case T-155/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of opposition - No need to adjudicate)
   2010/C 134/61
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Maxcom Sp. z o.o. (Tychy, Poland) (represented by: P. Kral, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: D. Schimanek-Walicka, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Maxdata Computer GmbH & Co. KG (Marl, Germany)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 January 2009 (Case R 1019/2008-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Maxdata Computer GmbH & Co. KG and Maxcom Sp. z o.o.

      Operative part of the order

   The General Court:

               1.

               Rules that there is no need to adjudicate;

               2.

               Orders Maxcom Sp. z o.o. to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by OHIM.

      (1)  OJ C 153, 4.7.2009.


title: Case C-91/07: Order of the President of the Court of 18 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/25

         Order of the President of the Court of 18 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-91/07) (1)

   (2007/C 199/45)

      Language of the case: Italian

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

      (1)  OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.


title: Case T-427/09: Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2011 — centrotherm Clean Solutions v OHIM — Centrotherm Systemtechnik (CENTROTHERM) (Community trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Community word mark CENTROTHERM — Genuine use of the mark — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               22.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/42

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2011 — centrotherm Clean Solutions v OHIM — Centrotherm Systemtechnik (CENTROTHERM)
   (Case T-427/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Community word mark CENTROTHERM - Genuine use of the mark - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2011/C 311/77
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: centrotherm Clean Solutions GmbH & Co. KG (Blaubeuren, Germany) (represented by: O. Löffel, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider and R. Manea, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Centrotherm Systemtechnik GmbH (Brilon, Germany) (represented by: J. Albrecht and U. Vormbrock, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 August 2009 (Case R 6/2008-4) relating to revocation proceedings between centrotherm Clean Solutions GmbH & Co. KG and Centrotherm Systemtechnik GmbH

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 25 August 2009 (Case R 6/2008-4) in so far as it annuls the decision of the Cancellation Division of 30 October 2007 in part;

               2.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by centrotherm Clean Solutions GmbH & Co. KG;

               3.

               Orders Centrotherm Systemtechnik GmbH to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.


title: Action brought on 18 January 1996 by the Portuguese Republic against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-12/96)

text:
30 . 3 . 96             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        No C 95/5
         material time, the increase in that credit line was                 Directive 90/388/EEC with regard to the abolition of the
         consistent with the conduct of private investor in                  restrictions on the use of cable television networks for
         HSW acting on market economy principles, who had                    the provision of already liberalized telecommunications
         to   consider   that   his   substantial  loan   to  this           services ( 1 ),
         undertaking in liquidation would be regarded as
         replacing equity capital . In particular, the extent of       — order the defendant institution to pay the costs .
         the commitment to the company which was the
         predecessor of the new one is completely unsuited for         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
         use as a yardstick for assessing the nature as aid of the
         increase in the credit line granted in 1992 . A private       — lack of competence of the Commission : the Commission
         investor assesses whether in a crisis he should realize             is not specifying obligations already in existence under
         a large loss by terminating a large commitment or                   Article 90 ( 1 ), rather it is a new obligation to liberalize
         buy himself, by making a further limited capital                    the market outwith the relevant legislation in existence
         injection, a realistic prospect of avoiding or reducing             at that time, in turn giving rise to areas as yet unregulated
         his loss, still in the light of the circumstances at                which seriously affects the universal provision of
         the time . It always turns on which decision is the                 services, which may only be supervised by means of the
         most reasonable one commercially in the actual                      proper exercise of the Community's legislative power,
         circumstances . There is, however, no commercial                    that is, by means of the system of harmonization, which
         law which states that a successor company founded                   is a matter solely for the Council and the European
         to avoid the liquidation of a company should                        Parliament both under the Treaty ( specifically
         invariably be financed only to the extent to which the              Articles 87 and 100a of the EC Treaty ) and under
         company which became insolvent was financed,                        the resolutions adopted in this sphere . This is an
                                                                             encroachment of powers which may in no way be
    — the Commission further wrongly assumes that the                        considered to be sanctioned by Article 90 ( 3 ) or the
         extension and increase of the credit line in December               case-law of the Court of Justice interpreting it,
         1993 constitutes an aid : the measure is based on a
         recommendation of an independent firm of business             — misuse           of   powers :     by      imposing   the  direct
         consultants and had the aim of supporting HSW by                    interconnection of cable television networks, the
         means of a further, relatively small increase in the                Commission is in fact implementing a harmonization
         credit line until the business was sold and hence of                measure in breach of the principles of interinstitutional
         substantially reducing the losses feared in the event               balance enshrined in the Treaty and in the case-law.
         of   the  termination      of  the  commitment .    The
         subsequent actual sale shows that the overall loss            f 1 ) OJ No L 256 , 26 . 10 . 1995 , p . 49 .
         resulting from the privatization was markedly less
         than it would have been had the commitment been
         terminated in December 1993 .
— In the alternative : incorrect calculation of the amount of
    the aid .
                                                                       Action brought on 18 January 1996 by the Portuguese
                                                                       Republic against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
                                                                                Case C-12/96
                                                                                ( 96/C 95/09 )
Action brought on 18 January 1996 by the Kingdom                       An action against the Commission of the European
of Spain against the Commission of the European                        Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
                           Communities
                                                                       the European Communities on 18 January 1996 by the
                          Case C-ll /96 )                              Portuguese Republic, represented by Dr Paulo de Pitta e
                           ( 96/C 95/08 )                              Cunha, Dr Nuno Ruiz and Dr Luis Fernandes, acting as
                                                                       Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                       Portuguese Embassy, 33 Allee Scheffer.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 18 January 1996 by the                         The applicant claims that the Court should :
Kingdom of Spain, represented by Gloria Calvo Diaz,
                                                                       — annul Article 1 ( 2 ) and Article 2 of Commission
Abogado del Estado, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Spanish Embassy, 4 and 6 Boulevard                         Directive 95/5 1 /EC of 18 October 1995 amending
E. Servais .                                                                 Directive 90/388/EEC with regard to the abolition of the
                                                                             restrictions on the use of cable television networks for
                                                                             the provision of already liberalized telecommunications
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                 services (');
— annul the second indent of Article 1 ( 2 ) of Commission             — order the Commission to pay all the costs of the
    Directive 95/5 1 /EC of 18 October 19 95 amending                        proceedings .
 ---pagebreak--- No C 95/6              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    30 . 3 . 96
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                           of the privatization process in general and has an
                                                                              adverse effect on the price of its shares with
                                                                              repercussions for the future as regards sources of
                                                                              funding for its activities. Inasmuch as they do not
— Lack of competence: The Commission has no                                   admit of any additional transitional period for
    competence under Article 90 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty to                     Portugal, the obligations laid down in Article 1 ( 2 ) of
    require Member States, by means of Directives, to                         Directive 95/5 1/EC constitute a very serious obstacle
    abolish all types of restrictions on the provision of                     to the tasks assigned to Portugal Telecom and are,
    network transmission capacity for cable television, to                    therefore, incompatible with Article 90 ( 2 ) of the EC
    allow the use of those networks for the provision of                     Treaty,
   telecommunications services other than voice telephony
   and to authorize for that purpose the connection of cable
   television networks to public telecommunications
   networks, inasmuch as compliance with such an                          — infringement of the provisions of the Treaty relating
   obligation involves the need to amend or apply in a                       to cohesion and differentiation : by adopting the
   different way general legislation intended to regulate the                Directive at issue, the Commission has completely
   exercise of the activities of cable television operators .                upset the balance of the process which was politically
   Those powers belong exclusively to the European                           agreed in the Council and jeopardized the complex of
   Parliament      and the     Council    in  accordance    with             initiatives and measures intended to ensure supply of
   Article 100a and are regulated by Article 189b, which                     services and the installation and development of a
   adequately protect the prerogatives of both institutions,                 public network capable of adequately responding to
   the role of the Economic and Social Committee and the                     the needs of providing a universal service . Articles 1
   interests of the Member States .                                          ( 2 ) and 2 of Directive 95/51 /EC are thus in breach
                                                                             of the principles of cohesion and negative
                                                                             differentiation provided for in Articles 130a and 7c
                                                                             of the EC Treaty, on which was based the
   Having regard to Article 86 , it should be recalled that                  establishment by agreement at Council level,
   Article 90 of the EC Treaty only confers powers on the                    of the additional timetables provided for the
   Commission in respect of the measures adopted by                          liberalization of the installation and operation of
   Member States and not in respect of anti-competitive                      telecommunications infrastructures .
   conduct which undertakings themselves might adopt.
   No specific State measure imposes upon the
   telecommunications organizations or cable television
   network operators any obligation as regards the                    — Infringement of legislative rules relating to the
   organization of their respective accounting procedures .              application of the EC Treaty:
   The fact that operators do not treat them separately is
   due only to themselves and the fact that this makes it
   difficult to prove that there has been cross-subsidy does             — infringement of the principles of legal certainty and
   not, of itself, constitute a basis for the competence of the              legitimate expectations : since at the meeting of
   Commission under Article 90 ( 3 ). Nor, therefore, does                   17 November 1994 the Council had not been in
   the Commission have any power to impose the                               favour of liberalizing alternative infrastructure
   obligation contained in Article 2 of Directive                            before 1 January 1998 , having argued for the need
   95/51 /EC .
                                                                             for political agreement on the matter and pointed
                                                                             out, as the Commission itself did , the importance of
                                                                             defining beforehand the mechanisms to safeguard
                                                                            the existence of the universal service, the Directive at
— Infringement of essential procedural requirements : the
   statement     of   reasons    for   Directive   95/51 /EC   is            issue amended radically and unexpectedly the
                                                                            existing rules, whose effect was immediate or in the
   insufficient in various ways .
                                                                            extremely short term, was issued unaccompanied by
                                                                            essential measures of transition or adaption and
                                                                             seriously jeopardizing the strategies for development
— Infringement of the EC Treaty:                                            and adjustment laid down by some Member States
                                                                            and by the operators affected by them . Council
                                                                            resolutions such as that of 22 December 1994 ( on
                                                                            the principles and the timetable for liberalization
   — infringement of Article 90 ( 2 ) of the EC Treaty:                     of telecommunications infrastructures ) create
        the bringing forward of liberalization of the                       legitimate expectations and are significant for the
        infrastructure could lead to a significant reduction of             purpose of interpreting and analysing acts of the
        Portugal Telecom's revenue between 1996 and 2003 ,                  institutions giving effect thereto . It is unacceptable
        not taking into account the losses resulting from the               that the autonomy of each of the institutions should
        encouragement of traffic away from the telephone                    lead to inconsistencies between what one of them
        service to leased line networks. In addition to this,               advocates and another decides, thus hindering and
       changes to the regulatory framework — which were                     thwarting the defining of an economic policy by the
        not foreseeable at the time of the partial privatization            Member States and undermining the legal certainty
        of the undertaking — put in question the credibility                to which economic operators are entitled,
 ---pagebreak--- 30 . 3 . 96             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                        No C 95/7
    — infringement of the principle of equal treatment and            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
         non-discrimination : by generally imposing the
         opening up of the alternative networks to operators          — the aim and the content of the contested act are part of
         who exploit them in very different national systems,             Title XII of the EC Treaty and Article 129d ( inasmuch as
         benefitting some and adversely affecting others as
                                                                          it is a procedural article ) is the only appropriate legal
         a result of being incompatible with the duty of
                                                                          basis . On the one hand, despite the procedural and
         non-discrimination and of equal treatment required,
                                                                          terminological changes made to the Commission's
         not only of the Member States, but also of the                   proposal, there are numerous 'policy' elements which
         Community institutions . This defect of the Directive            justify recourse to Article 129d ( 1 ). On the other, there
         is even more serious inasmuch as since the legal
                                                                          are also a number of 'interoperability' aspects ( second
         system governing the activity of cable television                indent of Article 129c ( 1 ) as basic Article ) which justify
         operators in Portugal is liberal as regards the issuing          of themselves recourse to Article 129d ( 3 ). Finally, since
         of licences, it magnifies the impact of liberalization,
                                                                          projects of common interest have been clearly identified,
         when in fact it would be desirable, having regard
                                                                          the Community contribution falls within the scope of
         to the comparative underdevelopment of the                       the third indent of Article 129c ( 1 ) and the correct legal
         Portuguese national network, that the effect of the              basis is in this case also Article 1 29d ( 3 ) . Given that there
         measure should be felt gradually and over time .
                                                                          are specific legal bases in the Treaty, Article 235 of the
                                                                          EC Treaty is not at all relevant,
— Misuse of powers : Directive 95/5 1/EC does not seem to
     be intended to promote fairness in greater competition
    with regard to the leasing of networks and,                       — in the alternative, lack of competence, misuse of powers
    consequently, to the liberalized telecommunications                   as regards Article 2 ( 2 ) of the contested Decision :
     services . Rather, it advances in a concealed manner the             that provision gives the contested Decision an
     total liberalization of the infrastructures and places in a          unascertainable scope, constitutes an arrogation of
     privileged position those cable television operators who             competence by the Council and, above all, is tantamount
     are already established in some of the Member States                 to disregarding ab initio the rights of Parliament to
     where they are not subject to any competition .                      intervene in the legislative process .
H OJ No L 256 , 26 . 10 . 19 95 , p . 49 .                            0 ) Decision 95/468/EC, published in OJ No L 269 , 11 . 11 . 1995 ,
                                                                          p. 23 .
  Action brought on 25 January 1996 by the European
  Parliament against the Council of the European Union
                         ( Case C-22/96 )                             Action brought on 26 January 1996 by the Commission of
                                                                       the European Communities against the French Republic
                           ( 96/C 95/ 10 )
                                                                                ( Case C-23/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 95/ 11 )
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 25 January 1996 by the European                        An action against the French Republic was brought before
Parliament, represented by Johann Schoo and Jose Luis                 the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
Rufas Quintana, action as Agents, with an address for                 26 January 1996 by the Commission of the European
service in Luxembourg at the General Secretariat of the               Communities, represented by Michel Nolin and Jean
Parliament, Batiment Tour, Kirchberg.                                 Francis Pasquier, acting as Agents, with an address for
                                                                      service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la
                                                                      Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre , Kirchberg.
The applicant claims that the Court should :
— annul, pursuant to Article 173 of the EC Treaty, the                The applicant claims that the Court should :
    Decision of the Council of 6 November 1995 on a
     Community contribution for telematic interchange of
     data between administrations in the Community                    — declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
     ( IDA )( 1 ),                                                        within the prescribed period the laws, regulations
                                                                          or administrative provisions necessary to comply
                                                                          with Commission Directive 91 /507/EEC ( J ) modifying
— annul, in any event, also pursuant to Article 173 of the                the Annex to Council Directive 75/318/EEC ( 2 ) on the
     EC Treaty, Article 2 ( 2 ) of that Decision,                         approximation of the laws of Member States relating
                                                                          to analytical , pharmacotoxicological and clinical
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                                  standards and protocols in respect of the testing of


title: Case T-175/99: Action brought on 2 August 1999 by UPS Europe NV/SA against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
2.10.1999              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 281/27
The applicants claim that the Court should:                               In support of its claim, the applicant submits that the contested
                                                                          decision:
— annul the decisions taken by the selection board in
    competition No COM/A/10/98 excluding the applicants                   — infringes Article 253 EC, in so far as, in the circumstances
    from the tests subsequent to the pre-selection tests, the                 of the present case, it is not sufficient for the Commission
    said decisions being contained in letters sent to the                     merely to state that Article 82 EC does not prevent an
    applicants on 16 June 1999;                                               undertaking which has a monopoly from expanding into
                                                                              other areas. The applicant stresses that, to its knowledge,
— consequently, annul all of the steps taken and acts done                    the decision is the first one in which the Commission
    subsequently in the procedure relating to competition                     expresses its views on the question whether an undertaking
    No COM/A/10/98;                                                           enjoying an exclusive right to perform a service of general
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                      interest can use the profits deriving from the reserved
                                                                              market to acquire control of an undertaking in a neigh-
                                                                              bouring liberalised country.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           — ignores the fact that the use of profits deriving from an
                                                                              exclusive right which is granted solely in order to ensure
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case                   performance of a service of general economic interest
T-172/99 Pentericci v Commission (1).                                         would constitute an abuse of a dominant position, pro-
                                                                              hibited under Article 82 EC.
(1) Not yet published in the Official Journal.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 340, of 7.11.98, p. 25.
Action brought on 2 August 1999 by UPS Europe NV/SA
  against the Commission of the European Communities                      Action brought on 4 August 1999 by Colette Jemaa
                                                                                against the Council of the European Union
                          (Case T-175/99)
                                                                                (Case T-176/99)
                         (1999/C 281/51)
                                                                                (1999/C 281/52)
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European                An action against the Council of the European Union was
Communities on 2 August 1999 by UPS Europe NV/SA,                         brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
represented by T.R. Ottervanger and D. Arts, with an address              Communities on 4 August 1999 by Colette Jemaa, residing
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loeff Claeys                 in Geneva (Switzerland), represented by Jean-Noël Louis,
Verbeke, 5 rue Charles Martel.                                            Greta-Françoise Parmentier and Véronique Peere, of the Brus-
                                                                          sels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                          offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the Commission’s decision of 10 June 1999 rejecting               The applicant claims that the Court should:
    the applicant’s complaint;
                                                                          — annul the decision rejecting the applicant’s request for
— order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the                       authorisation to rent and occupy, from 1 April 1998, an
    applicant in the present proceedings;                                     apartment corresponding to the needs of her family at a
                                                                              monthly rent of CHF 4 800 plus service charges;
— take such further action as the Court may deem appro-
    priate.                                                               — order the defendant to pay an allowance corresponding to
                                                                              the amount of that rent plus service charges from 1 April
                                                                              1998 and interest at the annual rate of 6 % from the date
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               on which the rental payments in question fell due;
                                                                          — order the defendant in addition to pay, by way of
The applicant in the present case, which is also the applicant                compensation for the material damage suffered, the sum
in Case T-127/98 UPS Europe v Commission, (1) challenges the                  of CHF 100 216, plus the sum of 50 000 euro by way of
Commission’s decision rejecting its complaint, but only that                  compensation for the non-material damage suffered by the
part of it which concerns Article 82 EC and relates to the                    applicant and her family;
concentration by means of which Deutsche Post AG (DPAG)
intends to acquire control of DHL International Ltd.                      — order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case T-480/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 July 2008 — SIMSA v Commission

text:
               27.9.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/24

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 July 2008 — SIMSA v Commission
   (Case T-480/07) (1)

   (2008/C 247/49)

      Language of the case: Italian

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

      (1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.


title: References for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de Commerce de Marseille by judgments of that court of 1 March 1996 in the case of URSSAF des Bouches-du-Rhône against Clinique de la Pointe Courte SA, intervener: Jean Chouraqui (C-95/96) and in the case of URSSAF des Bouches-du-Rhône against Clinique Florens SA, intervener: Jean Chouraqui (C-96/96) (Cases C-95/96 and C-96/96)

text:
1 . 6 . 96            I hN     i               Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 158/3
entitled to compete for the course-teaching appointments                  Commerce ( Commercial Court ) of 1 March 1996 , received
and temporary university teaching posts .                                 at the Court Registry on 18 March 1996 , for a preliminary
                                                                          ruling in the case of URSSAF des Bouches-du-Rhône against
C ) OJ , English Special Edition 1958 ( II ), p . 457                     Clinique de la Pointe Courte SA, intervener: Jean Chouraqui
                                                                          (C - 95/96 ) and in the case of URSSAF des Bouches
                                                                          du-Rhône against Clinique Florens SA, intervener : Jean
                                                                          Chouraqui (C- 96/96 ) on the following question :
                                                                          May the French State initiate proceedings against Mr Jean
Action brought on 25 March 1996 by the Commission of
                                                                          Chouraqui , in his capacity as an Agent ('), before having
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                                                                          made good the damage suffered by him and for which the
                          ( Case C-94/96 )                                State was responsible , bearing in mind that the sums due are
                            ( 96/C 158 /04                                closely linked to the harm suffered by Mr Chouraqui as a
                                                                          result of his irregular imprisonment since he was acquitted
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before                by the Cour d'assises by judgment of 16 December 1994 and
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                       the judicial receivership proceedings aggravate the harm
                                                                          suffered ?
25 March 1996 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Maria Condou-Durande, of
its Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg              (') That is 'in his capacity as an agent for EURL Jean Chouraqui,
at the office of Carlos Gômez de la Cruz, of the                               proprietor of the legal person liable for sums payable to the
Commission's Legal Service , Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                         French State'; ' since the plea in law based on the difference
                                                                               between the French State and the URSSAF must be rejected '.
The applicant claims that the Court should :
— declare that by failing to adopt in due time the laws,
      regulations and administrative provisions necessary in
      order to comply with Council Directive 92/116/EEC ( 1 )
      of 17 December 1992 amending and updating Directive
      71 /118/EEC ( 2 ) on health problems affecting trade in
      fresh poultrymeat, the Hellenic Republic has failed                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by order of the Pretura
      to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty and that                 Circondariale di Roma, Tivoli Division, of 21 February
      Directive ;                                                         1996 in the criminal proceedings pending before that court
                                                                                against Italia Testa
— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs .
                                                                                Case C-101 /96 )
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                       ( 96/C 158/06
Under Article 189 , third paragraph, of the Treaty
establishing the European Community directives are to be                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
binding upon each Member State to which they are                          European Communities by order of the Pretura
addressed . The Hellenic Republic has not yet adopted the                 Circondariale di Roma ( District Magistrates ' Court, Rome ),
measures necessary to incorporate the relevant directive                  Tivoli Division, of 21 February 1996 , which was received at
fully into Greek law.                                                     the Court Registry on 26 March 1996 , for a preliminary
                                                                          ruling in the criminal proceedings pending before that court
                                                                          against Italia Testa on the following questions:
C ) OJ No L 62 , 1993 , p . 1 .
( 2 ) OJ, English Special Edition 1971 , p . 106 .
                                                                          A. May the national legislation conferring on the SIAE (')
                                                                                the exclusive right to manage copyright impede or
                                                                                prevent the import or export of sound recordings which
                                                                                have been lawfully marketed in another State ?
References for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de                    B. In the context of the single market, characterized by the
Commerce de Marseille by judgments of that court of                             free movement of goods and the freedom to provide
1 March 1996 in the case of URSSAF des Bouches
                                                                                services, may the SIAE require payments in all cases and
du-Rhône against Clinique de la Pointe Courte SA,                               circumstances on behalf of authors, relying on recourse
intervener: Jean Chouraqui ( C-95/96 ) and in the case of                       to criminal proceedings in order to give effect to that
URSSAF des Bouches-du-Rhône against Clinique Florens                            power and enforce its claims ?
           SA, intervener: Jean Chouraqui ( C-96/96 )
                  ( Cases C-95/96 and C-96/96 )
                                                                          C. Is the legislation and the national case-law referred to by
                            ( 96/C 158/05 )                                     the SIAE in its application to join the proceedings as a
                                                                                party claiming damages liable to give rise to arbitrary
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          discrimination or a disguised restriction of trade, into
European Communities by judgments of the Tribunal de                            and out of Italy, in relation to the commercial


title: Case T-153/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 28 February 2008 — EAEPC v Commission

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/46

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 28 February 2008 — EAEPC v Commission
   (Case T-153/06) (1)

   (2008/C 92/91)

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 178, 29.7.2006.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 February 2003 in Case T-183/00, Strabag Benelux NV v Council of the European Union (Public works contracts — Contested decision non-existent — Statement of reasons in the decision awarding the contract — Criteria for award — Application for annulment — Non-contractual liability of the Community)

text:
C 112/26                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         10.5.2003
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 25 February 2003
                          of 6 March 2003
                                                                            in Case T-183/00, Strabag Benelux NV v Council of the
                                                                                European Union (1)
in Case T-57/00: Banan-Kompaniet AB and Skandinaviska
                                                                            (Public works contracts — Contested decision non-existent
Bananimporten AB v Council of the European Union and                        — Statement of reasons in the decision awarding the contract
        Commission of the European Communities ( 1)
                                                                            — Criteria for award — Application for annulment — Non-
                                                                                contractual liability of the Community)
(Bananas — Common organisation of the markets —                                                       (2003/C 112/48)
Decision 94/800/EC — Regulation (EC) No 478/95 —
          Export licence scheme — Action for damages)                                           (Language of the case: French)
                          (2003/C 112/47)                                   In Case T-183/00, Strabag Benelux NV, established in Stabroek
                                                                            (Belgium), represented by A. Delvaux and V. Bertrand, lawyers,
                                                                            with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Council of
                    (Language of the case: English)                         the European Union (Agents: F. van Craeyenest, M. Arpio
                                                                            Santacruz and J. Stuyck) — application for, first of all,
                                                                            annulment of the Decision of the Council of 12 April 2000 to
                                                                            award to Entreprises Louis de Waele the contract for invitation
                                                                            to tender No 107865 issued on 30 July 1999 (OJ S 146) for
                                                                            the refitting and general maintenance of the Council’s buildings
In Case T-57/00, Banan-Kompaniet AB, established in Stock-                  and, second, compensation for the damage allegedly suffered
holm (Sweden), Skandinaviska Bananimporten AB, established                  by the applicant as a result of the Council’s conduct — the
in Arsta (Sweden), represented by B. O’Connor, Solicitor, with              Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of
an address for service in Luxembourg, v Council of the                      J.D. Cooke, President, and R. García-Valdecases and P. Lindh,
European Union (Agents: S. Marquardt and J.-P. Hix) and                     Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: initially                   given a judgment on 25 February 2003, in which it:
P. Oliver and C. Van der Hauwaert, then L. Visaggio and K.
Fitch): Application for compensation for the damage allegedly               1.     Dismisses the application;
suffered by the applicants by reason of the introduction of the
export licence scheme by Council Decision 94/800/EC of                      2.     Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and those of the
22 December 1994 concerning the conclusion on behalf of                            Council.
the European Community, as regards matters within its
competence, of the agreements reached in the Uruguay Round                  (1 ) OJ C 273 of 23.9.00.
multilateral negotiations (1986-1994) (OJ 1994 L 336, p. 1)
and by Commission Regulation (EC) No 478/95 of 1 March
1995 on additional rules for the application of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 as regards the tariff quota
arrangements for imports of bananas into the Community and
amending Regulation (EEC) No 1442/93 (OJ 1995 L 49, p. 13),                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
J.D. Cooke, President, R. García-Valdecasas and P. Lindh,                                            of 11 March 2003
Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, Registrar,
has given a judgment on 6 March 2003, in which it:                          in Case T-186/00: Conserve Italia Soc. Coop. rl v Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities (1)
1.     Dismisses the application;                                           (Agriculture — Guidance Section of the European Agricul-
                                                                            tural Guidance and Guarantee Fund — Discontinuance of
                                                                            financial aid — Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88
2.     Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and to pay those           — Principle of proportionality — Statement of reasons)
       of the Council and the Commission.
                                                                                (2003/C 112/49)
( 1) OJ C 135 of 13.05.2000.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                            In Case T-186/00: Conserve Italia Soc. Coop. rl, established in
                                                                            San Lazzaro di Savena (Italy), represented by M. Averani,


title: Case T-506/12 P: Appeal brought on 12 March 2014 by Eva Cuallado Martorell against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 September 2012 in Case F-96/09 Cuallado Martorell v Commission

text:
               5.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 135/40

         Appeal brought on 12 March 2014 by Eva Cuallado Martorell against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 September 2012 in Case F-96/09 Cuallado Martorell v Commission
   (Case T-506/12 P)
   2014/C 135/52
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Eva Cuallado Martorell (Augsburg, Germany) (represented by C. Pinto Cañón, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               declare her appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) in Case F-96/09 to be well founded and set that judgment aside in part, that is to say, setting aside the ruling of inadmissibility made in respect of her application for annulment of the competition selection board’s decision refusing her admission to the oral test and the rejection of her application for annulment of the decisions refusing to send her the marked written tests and the personal evaluation sheet relating to those tests;

               —

               grant the forms of order sought at first instance, except to the extent that they impugn the decisions refusing written tests (b) and (c) in so far as those decisions refused disclosure of her test papers and the evaluation sheets drawn up by the selection board for each of those tests, since EPSO sent her those documents by letter of 16 June 2010, paragraphs 72 and 73; and

               —

               uphold the order that the Commission pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and order the Commission to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant relies on three grounds of appeal.

               1.

               First ground of appeal: the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law in holding inadmissible certain pleas set out in the application, thereby acting in breach of the right to an effective remedy enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

                           —

                           The appellant submits in this regard that the Civil Service Tribunal held certain of the pleas set out in the application to be out of time, in that it found, in breach of the principle of pro actione, that in order to calculate, in relation to the contested act, the time allowed for bringing an action, there was no need to consider the appellant’s administrative complaint submitted in accordance with Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community.

               2.

               Second ground of appeal: the Civil Service Tribunal infringed Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 296 TFEU in finding that the communication to a candidate merely of the marks obtained by that person in two written tests in an open competition, without further reasoning, constitutes an adequate statement of reasons.

                           —

                           In response to the finding made by the Civil Service Tribunal that all the proceedings of a selection board are covered by secrecy, by implication defending the immunity of decisions, the appellant argues that a selection board’s decisions may be open to review by the courts on the basis of the distinction, within the selection board’s technical assessment, between the ‘substantive core of the decision’ and the ‘background’ to that decision.

               3.

               Third ground of appeal: infringement of Articles 42 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

                           —

                           The appellant submits in this regard that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law in holding that an open competition candidate who disagrees with the mark obtained does not have a right of access to the marked written tests and that, in so doing, it infringed her right of access to the documents.


title: Case T-136/16: Action brought on 29 March 2016 — Caisse régionale de crédit agricole mutuel Brie Picardie v ECB

text:
               17.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/32

         Action brought on 29 March 2016 — Caisse régionale de crédit agricole mutuel Brie Picardie v ECB
   (Case T-136/16)
   (2016/C 175/38)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Caisse régionale de crédit agricole mutuel Brie Picardie (Amiens, France) (represented by: H. Savoie, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Central Bank

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the European Central Bank decision of 29 January 2016 (ECB/SSM/2016 — 969500TJ5KRTCJQWXH05/99) adopted under Article 4(1)(e) of Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 of the European Central Bank and under Articles L. 511-13, L. 511-52, L. 511-58, L. 612-23-1 and R. 612-29-3 of the French monetary and financial code (code monétaire et financier français).

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-133/16, Caisse régionale de crédit agricole mutuel Alpes Provence v ECB.


title: Case T-285/06: Action brought on 11 October 2006 — TORRES v OHIM — Bodegas Cándido (TORRE DE FRIAS)

text:
               16.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 310/19

         Action brought on 11 October 2006 — TORRES v OHIM — Bodegas Cándido (TORRE DE FRIAS)
   (Case T-285/06)
   (2006/C 310/38)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Miguel Torres S.A. (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, M. A. Baz de San Ceferino and A. Castán Pérez-Gόmez, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Bodegas Cándido S.A.
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 July 2006 in Case R 1069/2000-2 and order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Bodegas Cándido S.A.

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark TORRE DE FRIAS for goods in Class 33 — Application No 305 151.

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: National word marks TORRES, international word mark TORRES, and international word mark LAS TORRES for goods in Class 33.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) since the word TORRE is the dominant component in the overall impression produced by the mark applied for there are aural and visual similarities between the conflicting marks, and there is a likelihood of confusion between them which makes it impossible for them to coexist on the market.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: Action brought on 8 May 1995 by Michel Pouzol against the Court of Auditors of the European Communities (Case T-115/95)

text:
No C 159/28        TEN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      24 . 6 . 95
Action brought on 24 April 1995 by Fédération Française             Moreover, the decision in question breaches Community
des Sociétés d'Assurances and Others against the                    law rules . Both the French authorities and the Commission
        Commission of the European Communities                      consider that they are able to justify the favourable
                       ( Case T-106/95 )                            treatment accorded to the post office by virtue of public
                                                                    interest requirements and in particular of the requirements
                         ( 95/C 159/57 )                            of providing a service throughout the whole of the national
                                                                    territory and of participation in regional development. In
               (Language of tbe case: French)                       accordance with Community law, the legality of State aid
                                                                    under Community law must be examined solely in the light
An action against the Commission of the European                    of its effect on trade and not of its aim. The applicants
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   observe in that respect that, according to the case-law of the
Instance of the European Communities on 24 April 1995 by            Court of Justice :
Fédération Française des Sociétés d'Assurances , whose
registered office is at Paris, Union des Sociétés Etrangères        ( a ) the intended aims of State aid cannot suffice to justify
d'Assurances, whose registered office is at Paris, Groupe des              granting such aid to an undertaking even when it is
Assurances Mutuelles Agricoles, whose registered office is in              entrusted with the operation of services of general
Noisy-le-Grand ( France ), Fédération Nationale des                        interest;
Syndicats d'Agents Généreaux d'Assurances, whose
registered office is at Paris , Fédération Française des
Courtiers    d'Assurances      et de    Réassurances,    whose      ( b ) the fiscal nature or social aim of aid granted cannot
registered office is at Paris, and Bureau International des                suffice to shield it from Article 92 of the Treaty;
Producteurs d'Assurances et de Réassurances , whose
registered office is at Paris, represented by Dominique             (c ) it is not even necessary for trade between Member
Voillemot, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in                States to have been affected, since a measure contrary to
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jacques Loesch, 8 Rue                        Community law must be prohibited where it has an
Zithe .                                                                    influence, direct or indirect, actual or potential, on the
                                                                           pattern of trade .
The applicant claims that the Court should :
— annul the decision of the Commission of 21 February               Finally, the applicants point out the inconsistency of the
    1995 ,                                                          Commission itself when, after having considered that the
                                                                    tax advantage at issue does not go beyond that which may
— order the Commission to pay all the costs .                       be justified in order to ensure the achievement of public
                                                                    interest obligations which the post office is required to
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 perform, it nonetheless requests the French authorities to
                                                                    ensure that the accounting organization of the post office
The applicants, several associations representing the               observes Community law rules .
insurance sector, challenge the decision of the Commission
of 21 February 1995 , since they consider compatible with
Article 92 of the EC Treaty the provisions contained in the
French Law of 2 July 1 9 90 on the reform of the organization
of the French public post office and France Telecom . That
Law, which conferred upon the post office new and
particularly extensive powers in matters of financial
insurance services, had in particular the effect of giving it the
means of intervening in every field of insurance.                   Action brought on 8 May 1995 by Michel Pouzol against
                                                                         the Court of Auditors of the European Communities
Furthermore, the abovementioned Law confers on the post                                      (Case T-115/95 )
office a considerable number of advantages, as regards both                                    ( 95/C 159/58 )
taxation ( deferred payment of company tax, tax on salaries
and local direct charges) and procurement of its assets .
According to the applicants, the whole of these measures                              (Language of tbe case: French)
constitute a substantial advantage for the post office by
comparison with the charges which normally burden the
budget of every newly incorporated insurance undertaking            An action against the Court of Auditors of the European
and every newly created broking company governed by the             Communities was brought before the Court of First
general provisions .                                                Instance of the European Communities on 8 May 1995 by
                                                                    Michel Pouzol, residing at Bertrange ( Grand Duchy of
First, they argue that the analysis and the methodology             Luxembourg ), represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Thierry
chosen by the Commission in the disputed decision are               Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an
highly questionable inasmuch as they rely on information            address for service in Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Myson Sari,
provided by the French authorities themselves with regard            1 Rue Glesener .
to the assessment of the obligations flowing from the task of
providing public services and the extra cost which they claim
they generate.                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should :
 ---pagebreak--- 24 . 6 . 95            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                              No C 159/29
— annul the decision of 20 July 1994 drawing up the                          Removal from the register of Case T-445/93 ( )
     applicant's staff report for the period 1992 to 1993 and                                     ( 95/C 159/60 )
     all subsequent decisions adopted on the basis of that
     report,
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
— annul, to the extent necessary, the decision of
     10 February 1995 expressly rejecting the applicant's             By order of 6 April 1 995 the President of the Fourth
    complaint, and                                                    Chamber (extended composition ) of the Court of First
                                                                      Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                              from the register of Case T-445/93 : Eastern Electricity pic,
                                                                      East Midlands Electricity pic, Electricity Association
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   Services Limited, London Electricity pic, Manweb pic,
The applicant, an official of the Court of Auditors of grade          Midlands Electricity pic, National Power pic, Northern
A 5 and President of the Staff Committee of that institution          Electric pic, Norweb pic, PowerGen pic, Seeboard pic,
at the material time, complains that the appointing                   Southern Electric pic, South Wales Electricity pic, South
authority failed to observe certain principles of law when            Western Electricity pic, The National Grid Company pic
drawing up his staff report for the period 1992 to 1993 .             and Yorkshire Electricity Group pic v . Council of the
                                                                      European Union and Commission of the European
He argues that it was contrary to Article 43 of the Staff             Communities .
Regulations and general implementing provisions for his
staff report to have been drawn up by the head of his original        f 1 ) OJ No C 57, 4 . 3 . 1992 .
department when, during the material time, he had been
placed at the disposal of the Staff Committee on a full-time
basis .
Moreover, since the general implementing provisions
provide that the Secretary-General is, in the event of an                      Removal from the register of Case T-8/94 H
appeal, competent only in respect of those officials assessed                                       95/C 159/61 )
who are directly under the authority of the director of a
preparatory group, which is not the case of the Staff
Committee , it is contrary to those provisions for his                                (Language of tbe case: French)
definitive staff report to have been drawn up by the
Secretary-General .                                                   By order of 10 May 1995 the President of the Second
                                                                      Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Finally, the applicant stresses the fact that over the period in      Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
question his immediate superior could not have taken                  T-8/94 : H. v. Commission of the European
account of developments in his merits since his last staff            Communities .
report, given that the duties undertaken by the Staff
Committee form an integral part of the services which                 f 1 ) OJ No C 59 , 26 . 2 . 1994 .
officials are required to ensure .
        Removal from the register of Case T-20/93 C )                        Removal from the register of Case T- 1 88/94 ( 1 )
                         ( 95/C 159/59 )                                                          ( 95/C 159/62
                (Language of the case: Frencb)                                       (Language of the case: Frencb)
By order of 5 April 1995 the President of the Third Chamber           By order of 7 April 1995 the President of the Second
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities            Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
ordered the removal from the register of Case T-20/93 :               Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
Willy Seghers v . Council of the European Union.                      T-l 88/94: Nathalie Creste v . Council of the European
                                                                      Union .
(M OJ No C 89 , 31 . 3 . 1993 .
                                                                      f 1 ) OJ No C 174 , 25 . 6 . 1994 .


26.4.2003              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 101/53
—     order the defendant to make good the non-material                         ation allowance and, therefore, the other realted allow-
      damage suffered, evaluated provisionally at EUR 50 000,                   ances, in accordance with the Lozano case-law;
      subject to adjustment;
                                                                          —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          The pleas in law and main arguments are those put forward
Until 1 May 2002, the applicant, an official at the Office for            earlier in Case T-205/02 Salvador García v Commission (1),
Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM), held the post                Case T-298/02 Ana Herero Romeu v Commission (2) and
of Head of Service of the Cancellation Division. By the decision          T-299/02 Dedeu v Commission (2).
being contested in the present action, the applicant was
transferred as legal adviser to Vice-President for Legal Affairs.
In support of his claims for annulment, the applicant pleads:             (1 ) OJ C 219 of 14 September 2002, p. 22.
                                                                          (2 ) OJ C 289 of 23 November 2002, p. 38.
—     erroneous and inadequate statement of reasons for the
      decision of 22 April 2002;
—     breach of the principle of proportionality and of freedom
      of expression;
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-305/01 (1)
—     infringement of the rights of defence, in particular the
      right to be heard;
                                                                                (2003/C 101/93)
—     breach of the principle of sound administration; and
                                                                                (Language of the Case: French)
—     breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of
      officials.
                                                                          By order of 29 January 2003 the President of the Third
                                                                          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                          Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                          T-305/01: Thalassa Seafoods S.A. v Commission of the
                                                                          European Communities.
Action brought on 3 March by Tomás Salazar Brier                          (1 ) OJ C 56 of 2.3.2002.
    against Commission of the European Communities
                          (Case T-83/03)
                         (2003/C 101/92)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-84/02 ( 1)
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                                (2003/C 101/94)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: French)
An action against Commission of the European Communities
was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 3 March 2003 by Tomás Salazar Brier,
residing in Brussels, represented by Ramón García-Gallardo                By order of 30 January 2003 the President of the First Chamber
Gil-Fournier and Dolores Domínguez Pérez, Members of the                  of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
Madrid and La Coruña Bars respectively.                                   ordered the removal from the register of Case T-84/02:
                                                                          Armand de Buck v Commission of the European Communities.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          (1 ) OJ C 131 of 1.6.2002.
—     declare invalid the decision of 24 February 2003, implicit
      in the Commission’s silence, refusing to grant an expatri-


               16.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 216/7

         Action brought on 23 October 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
   (Case E-25/15)
   (2016/C 216/04)
   An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 23 October 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Carsten Zatschler, Markus Schneider and Clémence Perrin, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               Declare that by failing to take within the prescribed time all the necessary measures to recover from the recipients the State aid declared incompatible with the functioning of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by Articles 2, 3, 4 and 5 of EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 404/14/COL of 8 October 2014 on the Investment Incentive Scheme in Iceland; by failing to cancel, within the prescribed time any outstanding payment referred to in Article 7 third sentence of that decision; and by failing to provide the EFTA Surveillance Authority, within the prescribed time, with all the information outlined in Article 8 of that Decision, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(3) of Part II of Protocol 3 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice and Articles 6, 7 and 8 of Decision No 404/14/COL.

               2.

               Order Iceland to bear the costs.

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

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority claims that Iceland has failed to comply with its obligations set out in the Authority’s Decision 404/14/COL of 8 October 2014on the Investment Incentive Scheme of Iceland (‘Recovery Decision’ or ‘Decision’).

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that in the Recovery Decision, the Authority found, inter alia, five investment agreements that Iceland had concluded with companies involved new State aid incompatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Article 6 of the Recovery Decision obliges Iceland to take all necessary measures to recover from the beneficiaries the unlawful State aid referred to in Articles 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Decision.

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that the third sentence of Article 7 of the Recovery Decision imposes an obligation on Iceland to cancel all outstanding payments of the aid from the date of notification of the Decision, i.e. as of 8 October 2014.

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority further submits that according to Article 8 of the Recovery Decision, Iceland was under the obligation to provide the Authority with the information listed under the aforementioned Article by 9 December 2014.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 3 July 1997 in Case T-201/96: Smanor SA and Others v. Commission of the European Communities (Failure to bring Treaty infringement proceedings - Action for declaration of failure to act - Action for damages - Inadmissibility)

text:
C 271 / 16             I EN I               Official Journal of the European Communities                                     6 . 9 . 97
2 . dismisses the claim for compensation;                              Action brought on 5 June 1997 by Societa Camar s.r.l.
                                                                            against Commission of the European Communities
3 . holds that there is no need to give a decision on the                                       (Case T-l 72/97)
     claim for default interest;
                                                                                ( 97/C 271 /27 )
4 . orders the defendant to pay all the costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
(') OJ C 351 , 30 . 12 . 1995 .
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                       Instance of the European Communities on 5 June 1997 by
                                                                       Societa Camar s.r.l ., represented by Wilma Viscardini
                                                                       Dona, assisted by Mariano Paolin and Simonetta Dona, of
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              the Padua Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                            of 3 July 1997                             at the Chambers of Ernst Arendt, Rue Mathias Hardt.
in Case T-201 /96: Smanor SA and Others v. Commission
               of the European Communities (')
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
(Failure to bring Treaty infringement proceedings —
Action for declaration of failure to act — Action for
                   damages — Inadmissibility)                          — declare, pursuant to Article 175 of the EC Treaty, that,
                            ( 97/C 271/26 )                                 by failing to provide that the licences for importing
                                                                            bananas from non-member countries or non
                                                                           traditional ACP countries to be allocated to Camar as
                 (Language of the case: French)                             a Category B operator during 1997 and for subsequent
                                                                           years pending restoration of its normal reference
                                                                            quantities should be calculated on the basis of the
In Case T-201/96 : Smanor SA, established at Saint-Martin
                                                                            quantities which Camar marketed in 1988 , 1989 and
d'Ecublei (France), Hubert Segaud and Monique Segaud,                       1990, the Commission has breached Article 30 of
residing at Saint-Martin-d'Ecublei , represented by                         Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 and the second
Laurence Roques, of the Val de Marne Bar, 7—9 Rue du                        subparagraph of Article 40 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty,
General de Larminat, Creteil ( France ), v. Commission of
the European Communities ( Agents : Richard Wainwright
and Jean-Francis Pasquier) — application, first, for a
declaration that, in failing to bring Treaty infringement              — order the Commission, pursuant to Article 178 and
proceedings against the French Republic under Article 169                  the second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty,
of the EC Treaty, the Commission has failed to act, and,                   to pay compensation for the damage which the
second, for damages for the loss flowing from that failure                 applicant has suffered by reason of the Commission's
— the Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber),                           failure,
composed of: C. W. Bellamy, President; B. Vesterdorf and
A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an
order on 3 July 1997, the operative part of which is as                — order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the
follows :                                                                  applicant in these proceedings .
1 . The action is dismissed as inadmissible;
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
2 . There is no need for a ruling on the application for
     leave to intervene;                                               The applicant company is the same as that in Case T-79/
                                                                       96 ( 1 ). It should first be pointed out in this regard, for
3 . The applicants are ordered to bear their own costs and             purposes of clarity, that while in Case T-79/96 Camar is
     to pay the costs of the Commission;                               seeking licences for additional imports from non-member
                                                                       countries as a Category B operator to replace the Somali
                                                                       bananas which it is unable to import vis-a-vis its
4 . The French Republic is ordered to bear the costs                   traditional quantity, the applicant is in the present action
     incurred by it in connection with the submission of its           requesting that the licences for non-member countries
    application for leave to intervene.                                normally allocated to it as a Category B operator should
                                                                       be quantified, not on the basis of the imports over three
                                                                       years as provided for under Article 4 of Commission
(') OJ C 54, 22 . 2 . 1997.
                                                                       Regulation ( EEC ) No 1442/93 , but on the basis of imports
                                                                       in 1988 , 1989 and 1990 . For 1997, the three-year period
                                                                       provided for under Article 4 of that regulation consists of


title: Case C-528/08 P: Order of the Court of 9 December 2009 — Luigi Marcuccio v European Commission (Appeal — Officials — Social security — Implied refusal of a request for 100 % reimbursement of certain medical costs incurred by an official — Order of declining jurisdiction from the Civil Service Tribunal — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/11

         Order of the Court of 9 December 2009 — Luigi Marcuccio v European Commission
   (Case C-528/08 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Officials - Social security - Implied refusal of a request for 100 % reimbursement of certain medical costs incurred by an official - Order of declining jurisdiction from the Civil Service Tribunal - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
   2010/C 100/17
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (represented by: G. Cipressa, avvocato)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, Agents, and A. dal Ferro, avvocato)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 9 September 2008 in Case T-144/08 Marcuccio v Commission, by which the Court of First Instance dismissed as inadmissible an action for annulment of the decision to refuse the appellant’s request for 100 % reimbursement of certain medical expenses, and seeking an order that the Commission pay the appellant the amount of EUR 89.56 as a supplementary reimbursement of his medical expenses or as compensation for loss.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Marcuccio shall pay the costs of the appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 32, 07.02.2009.


title: Case T-513/13: Action brought on 23 September 2013 — Braun Melsungen v OHIM (SafeSet)

text:
               16.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 336/28

         Action brought on 23 September 2013 — Braun Melsungen v OHIM (SafeSet)
   (Case T-513/13)
   2013/C 336/61
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: B. Braun Melsungen AG (Melsungen, Germany) (represented by M.-C. Seiler, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the contested decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 June 2013;

               —

               Alter the contested decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 June 2013 so that the preceding rejection decision of OHIM of 25 June 2012 is annulled;

               —

               Alter the contested decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 June 2013 so that the registration procedure is continued;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs, including those incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘SafeSet’ for goods in Class 10 — Community trade mark application No 10 549 368

      Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and (c), 7(2), 75 and 76 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009