title: Action brought on 10 November 1997 by Regione Autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-288/97)

text:
10. 1. 98             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 7/25
the Merger Regulation. As regards, specifically, the               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
geographical allocation of turnover, the applicant states
that a substantial part of the bank's loan portfolios
comprised loans made to Finnish borrowers that were                The applicant, who has also brought in Cases T-235/95 (1)
denominated in foreign currencies and were payable as to           and T-262/97 (2), challenges the inaction of the
interest and capital outside Finland.                              Commission in relation to a complaint, concerning the
                                                                   alleged anti-competitive practices on the part of the
                                                                   General Medical Council (GMC), a statutory body which
                                                                   regulates the medical profession in the territory of the
In relation to the calculation of aggregate turnover for the       United Kingdom. On August 1993 the applicant, a
undertakings concerned for the purposes of the two-thirds          community medical specialist in rheumatology, submitted
rule, the applicant submits that the branches or                   to the Commission pursuant to Article 3 (2) of Council
subsidiaries of UBF and KOP in London, Luxembourg and              Regulation No 17 an application for a finding that the
Zurich should be regarded as separate undertakings so              GMC had infringed Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty.
that, unless they also derived two-thirds of their turnover        According to the applicant's complaint, the GMC:
from Finland, the two-thirds test would not be satisfied by
each of the undertakings concerned'.
                                                                   Ð restricts persons holding a Community Medical
                                                                       Specialist Diploma issued pursuant to Council
                                                                       Directive 93/16/EC from having their specialist status
The applicant finally submits that the time taken to
                                                                       publicized in the Medical Register, and
submit the complaint is not unreasonable. First, the
concentration has not been communicated. Secondly, the
Commission's approach disregards the fact that until early         Ð has rules which inhibit direct access to the status of
in 1997 the applicant had no reason to suspect that the                Community Medical Specialist and inhibit advertising
concentration might have a Community dimension.                        by Community Medical Specialists to the public.
(1) OJ L 395, 30. 12. 1989, p. 1.                                  By letter dated 28 November 1995 the applicant sent the
                                                                   Commission a notice pursuant to Article 175 of the EC
                                                                   Treaty. By letter dated 6 December 1995 the Commission,
                                                                   declared that it was unable to take a formal position
                                                                   within the prescribed period of two months and stated
                                                                   that it preferred to work towards such a position without
                                                                   any specific framework. By letter dated 1 August 1997 the
                                                                   applicant formally requested the Commission to define its
Action brought on 5 November 1997 by Anthony
                                                                   position with regard to its complaint within two months.
Goldstein against the Commission of the European
                         Communities
                        (Case T-286/97)                            It follows, according to the applicant, that the conditions
                                                                   laid down in Article 175 were satisfied and that the
                          (98/C 7/68)                              Commission was required within that provision to take a
                                                                   definitive position on the request within two months.
                                                                   Since no reply has been received from the Commission, it
                                                                   must be considered that this obligation was not complied
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                   with.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 64, 2. 3. 1996, p. 19.
An action against the Commission of the European                   (2) OJ C 370, 6. 12. 1997, p. 8.
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 5 November
1997 by Anthony Goldstein, represented by Raymond St
John Murphy, solicitor, of Merriman White, 3 King's
Bench Walk, Inner Temple, London.
                                                                   Action brought on 10 November 1997 by Regione
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        Autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia against the Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-288/97)
Ð declare that contrary to Article 175 of the EC Treaty                                       (98/C 7/69)
    the Commission failed to define its position on the
    request submitted to it by the applicant pursuant to
    that provision,                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                   An action against the Commission of the European
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.                           Communities was brought before the Court of First
 ---pagebreak--- C 7/26               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                          10. 1. 98
Instance on 10 November 1997 by Regione Autonoma                       question cannot qualify for the derogation provided
Friuli Venezia Giulia, represented by Renato Fusco and                 for by Article 3 (1) (d) of the abovementioned
Murizio Maresca, of the Trieste and Genoa Bars, with an                Regulation, since they do not form part of a
address for service in Luxembourg at the chambers of                   reorganization plan and are not a response to
Franco Colussi, 26, rue de Wiltz.                                      overcapacity in the sector. The defendant, first, takes
                                                                       no account of the fact that all the financing is linked
                                                                       with the implementation of restructuring projects and,
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance                  second, attaches no importance to the existence of a
should:                                                                project previously notified, designed to achieve
                                                                       effective reorganization of the industry. Moreover,
                                                                       with regard to the absence of overcapacity, the
Ð annul in its entirety the Commission decision of                     Commission ignores the fact that the situation is
    30 July 1997 concerning aid granted to the Friuli                  characterized by the unavailability of licences and,
    Venezia Giulia Region in favour of road hauliers of                therefore, the impossibility of adding to the fleet
    that region, notified on 11 September 1997,                        vehicles of a gross weight exceeding 11,5 tonnes. As
                                                                       regards the part of the aid intended for the financing
                                                                       of containers and equipment for loading them onto
                                                                       vehicles and semi-trailers for international use, the
in the alternative:
                                                                       defendant made an incorrect assessment in identifying
                                                                       the aid attributable to the category qualifying for an
                                                                       exemption within the meaning of Article 3 (e) of the
Ð annul the decision as regards the part (Article 5)                   Regulation, by taking the view that only a part, set at
    which imposes the obligation to recover the aid                    between 10 % and 15 %, qualified for the exemption.
    granted as from 1 July 1990, plus interest,                        In that regard, the applicant states that Article 3 (e)
                                                                       refers without distinction to investments for fixed and
                                                                       mobile equipment necessary for transhipment,
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                Ð misapplication of the derogations provided for by
                                                                       Article 92 (3) (c) of the Treaty, in that the Commission
                                                                       considers that the measures in question are not
The applicant contests the Commission decision of 30 July              associated with any action in the common interest.
1997 which declared unlawful the aid paid as from 1 July               According to the applicant, on the basis of that
1990 by the Regional Administration to transport                       premiss, the defendant has disregarded that fact that
undertakings under Regional Laws No 28/1981 and No 4/                  the aid is regressive, of minimal amount and intended
1985, since it contravenes Article 92 of the EC Treaty.                for small and extremely small undertakings in order to
According to the defendant, the carriage of goods by road              promote the development of the transport business,
by way of cabotage was closed to competition until 1 July              both through the establishment of infrastructures and
1990, for which reason the aid in question constitutes new             through renewal of fleets, in compliance with
State aid as from that date.                                           environmental requirements and having regard to
                                                                       regional specificities,
In support of the forms of order which it seeks, the
Region relies on the following pleas in law:
                                                                   Ð the content of the decision is excessively vague.
                                                                       According to the Commission, the aid intended for the
                                                                       financing of equipment specifically suited to combined
Ð incorrect description of the measures as new' aid and
                                                                       transport operations and intended solely for that
    breach of essential procedural requirements. Being
                                                                       purpose constitutes State aid, but is compatible with
    measures deriving from a 1995 law, and thus ante-
                                                                       the common market by virtue of Article 3 (1) (e) of
    dating the Community legislation, those measures
                                                                       Regulation (EEC) No 1107/70. The applicant Region
    should be regarded as existing aid, with the result that
                                                                       maintains that, on the basis of that statement of
    any decision declaring them unlawful can take effect
                                                                       reasons, it is not easy to understand which aid is
    only as from the date of its adoption, and the
                                                                       lawful, with the result that it is difficult to distinguish
    obligation of recovery must be ruled out,
                                                                       such aid from aid which must be deemed excluded
                                                                       and thus covered by the obligation of recovery, giving
                                                                       rise to further difficulty in identifying exactly who is
Ð incorrect assessment as to whether the measures in                   required to repay the aid.
    question qualify for an exemption within the meaning
    of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1107/70 of 4 June
    1970 on the granting of aids for transport by rail road        (1) Official Journal English Special Edition 1970 (II), p. 360.
    and inland waterway (1). Without, in the applicant's
    view, taking the care to distinguish between the
    various forms of aid provided for by the regional
    rules, the Commission concludes that the measures in


title: Case C-436/06: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 December 2007 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Per Grønfeldt and Tatiana Grønfeldt v Finanzamt Hamburg — Am Tierpark (Free movement of capital — Taxation — Income tax — National legislation concerning the taxation of profits made from the sale of shareholdings (shares) in limited companies)

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/23

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 December 2007 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Per Grønfeldt and Tatiana Grønfeldt v Finanzamt Hamburg — Am Tierpark
   (Case C-436/06) (1)

   (Free movement of capital - Taxation - Income tax - National legislation concerning the taxation of profits made from the sale of shareholdings (shares) in limited companies)
   (2008/C 51/36)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Finanzgericht Hamburg
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Per Grønfeldt and Tatiana Grønfeldt

      Defendant: Finanzamt Hamburg — Am Tierpark
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Hamburg — Interpretation of Article 56 EC — Tax on the profits made from the sale of shares in limited companies — National legislation making taxation conditional upon a shareholding of at least 10 % if the company concerned is subject to unlimited corporation tax in the Member State, but conditional upon a shareholding of at least 1 % if the company concerned is established in another Member State
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 56 EC is to be interpreted as precluding the legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, by which the profits from a sale of shares in 2001 in a limited company established in another Member State are immediately taxable where the seller had held, either directly or indirectly, a share of at least 1 % of the company's capital within the previous five years, whereas the profits from the sale of shares in 2001, in the same circumstances, in a limited company established in that first Member State subject to unlimited corporation tax were subject to tax only in the case of a substantial shareholding of at least 10 %.

      (1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.


title: Case C-488/06 P: Appeal brought on 27 November 2006 by L & D S.A. against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 7 September 2006 in Case T-168/04 L & D S.A. v OHIM

text:
               27.1.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 20/12

         Appeal brought on 27 November 2006 by L & D S.A. against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 7 September 2006 in Case T-168/04 L & D S.A. v OHIM
   (Case C-488/06 P)
   (2007/C 20/18)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Appellant: L & D S.A. (represented by: S. Miralles Miravet, abogado)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and Julios Sämann Ltd
   Form of order sought

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance in its entirety

               —

               annul paragraphs 1 and 3 of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 March 2004, in so far as it (1) partially annuls the decision of the Opposition Division and refuses registration of the mark applied for in respect of goods in Classes 3 and 5, and, (2) orders each one of the parties to bear the costs that they incurred in the opposition proceedings and the appeal;

               —

               order OHIM to pay all the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (1).
   The Court of First Instance infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 by concluding: (i) that the earlier Community mark No 91.991 had acquired a distinctive character; (ii) that the figurative mark with the verbal element ‘Aire Limpio’ No 252.288 and the earlier Community figurative mark No 91.991 were similar; and, (iii) that there was a likelihood of confusion.
   Infringement of Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94
   The Opposition Division of OHIM (decision of 25 February 2003) and the Board of Appeal (decision of 15 March 2004) confined their examination to the mark whose registration is sought (‘Aire Limpio’ No 252.288) and the earlier Community mark No 91.991. However, the Court of First Instance relied on documents related to other marks, particularly in relation to international mark No 328.915 ‘ARBRE MAGIQUE’. As a consequence, the grounds of the judgment under appeal refer to a mark that even the applicant excluded from the comparative analysis in order to determine the existence of a likelihood of confusion. By so doing, the applicant was unable to present its case properly in respect of the arguments and information relating to other marks other than Community trade mark No 91.991, on which is based the error in the judgment under appeal of the Court of First Instance.

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


title: Case T-290/12: Judgment of the General Court of 22 April 2015 — Republic of Poland v European Commission (Agriculture — Common organisation of markets — Processed fruit and vegetables sectors — Aid to producer groups — Limitation on the Union’s financial participation — Legal certainty — Legitimate expectations — Obligation to state reasons — Sincere cooperation)

text:
               8.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/11

         Judgment of the General Court of 22 April 2015 — Republic of Poland v European Commission
   (Case T-290/12) (1)

   ((Agriculture - Common organisation of markets - Processed fruit and vegetables sectors - Aid to producer groups - Limitation on the Union’s financial participation - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectations - Obligation to state reasons - Sincere cooperation))
   (2015/C 190/12)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: initially by B. Majczyna and M. Szpunar, and subsequently by B. Majczyna and K. Straś, Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially by N. Donnelly, B. Schima and D. Milanowska, and subsequently by D. Milanowska and B. Schima, Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of Article 1(2) to (4), (6), (12) and (13), Article 2(1) to (3), read in conjunction with Article 3 of, and Annexes I and II to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 302/2012 of 4 April 2012 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (OJ 2011 L 99, p. 21).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Poland to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 250, 18.8.2012.


title: Case C-510/07: Action brought on 21 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/32

         Action brought on 21 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-510/07)
   (2008/C 22/58)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

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

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt all such laws, regulations or administrative provisions as may be appropriate to maintain within the Community at all times the level of stocks of petroleum products in the second category of petroleum products listed in Article 2, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1(1) of Council Directive 68/414/EEC of 20 December 1968 imposing an obligation on Member States of the EEC to maintain minimum stocks of crude oil and/or petroleum products (1);

               —

               order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By its action, the Commission complains that the defendant has frequently not complied with the obligation to stock petroleum products under Directive 68/414/EEC, as amended and then codified by Council Directive 2006/67/EC of 24 July 2006 (2), as regards the products in the second category under that directive, namely gas oil, diesel oil, kerosene and jet-fuel of the kerosene type. The Commission points out, particularly, in that regard, that a sometimes considerable discrepancy exists between the figures relating to internal consumption of the products in question provided by the defendant in its monthly returns and the data available to the Commission via Eurostat.

      (1)  OJ English Special Edition, Series I, Chapter 1968 II, p. 586.

      (2)  OJ 2006 L 217, p. 8.


title: Case T-540/10: Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2013 — Spain v Commission (Cohesion Fund — Reduction of the financial assistance initially granted from the Cohesion Fund to four project stages concerning the construction of certain sections of the high-speed line linking Madrid and the French border — Time-limit for adopting a decision — Article H(2) of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 — Article 18(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1386/2002 — Additional works or services — Concept of ‘unforeseen circumstances’ — Article 20(2)(f) of Directive 93/38/EEC)

text:
               16.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/13

         Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2013 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-540/10) (1)

   (Cohesion Fund - Reduction of the financial assistance initially granted from the Cohesion Fund to four project stages concerning the construction of certain sections of the high-speed line linking Madrid and the French border - Time-limit for adopting a decision - Article H(2) of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 - Article 18(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1386/2002 - Additional works or services - Concept of ‘unforeseen circumstances’ - Article 20(2)(f) of Directive 93/38/EEC)
   2013/C 79/21
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: initially, M. Muñoz Pérez and, subsequently, A. Rubio González, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and D. Recchia, Agents)

      Re:

   Application, principally, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 6154 of 13 September 2010 reducing the assistance granted from the Cohesion Fund to the project stages ‘Línea de Alta Velocidad Madrid-Zaragoza-Barcelona-Frontera francesa. Tramo Lleida-Martorell (Plataforma). Subtramo IX-A’ (CCI No 2001.ES.16.C.PT. 005), ‘Línea de Alta Velocidad Madrid-Zaragoza-Barcelona-Frontera francesa. Tramo Lleida-Martorell (Plataforma). Subtramo X-B (Avinyonet del Penedés-Sant Sadurní d’Anoia’ (CCI No 2001.ES.16.C.PT. 008), ‘Línea de Alta Velocidad Madrid-Zaragoza-Barcelona-Frontera francesa. Tramo Lleida-Martorell (Plataforma). Subtramo XI-A and XI-B (Sant Sadurní d’Anoia-Gelida’) (CCI No 2001.ES.16.C.PT.009), ‘Línea de Alta Velocidad Madrid-Zaragoza-Barcelona-Frontera francesa. Tramo Lleida-Martorell (Plataforma). Subtramo IX-C’ (CCI No 2001.ES.16.C.PT.0010) and, alternatively, application to have that decision annulled in part in so far as it refers to the corrections applied to the amendments arising from the exceeding of the noise thresholds (Subsection IX-A), the change of PGOU (General Urban Development Plan) of the Ayuntamiento de Santa Oliva (Spain) (Subsection IX-A) and the differences in the geotechnical conditions (Subsections X-B. XI-A, XI-B and IX-C), reducing the amount of the corrections decided by the Commission by EUR 2 348 201,96.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.


title: Case C-202/15: Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 18 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale di Milano — Italy) — Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Regionale Lombardia Ufficio Contenzioso v H3G SpA

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/28

         Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 18 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale di Milano — Italy) — Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Regionale Lombardia Ufficio Contenzioso v H3G SpA
   (Case C-202/15) (1)

   (2017/C 283/38)
   Language of the case: Italian
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2015.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht Regensburg by order of that court of 13 March 1997 in the case of Willi Burstein against Freistaat Bayern (Case C-127/97)

text:
No C 181 /2             | EN I                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                          14 . 6 . 97
— Breach of Article 109 (2 ) of the OCT Decision: the                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bayerisches Ver
      contested regulation primarily protects the exportation             waltungsgericht Regensburg by order of that court of
      to the Community of rice from non-member countries,                 13 March 1997 in the case of Willi Burstein against Frei
      whereas the order of preference EC-OCT-ACP follows                                               staat Bayern
      from the OCT Decision, in conjunction with Council                                            ( Case C-127/97
      Regulation ( EEC ) No 715/90; second, both the
       Commission and the Council have failed to keep track                                            97/C 181 /03
       of the consequences which this decision has for the
       OCT and the areas of industry most affected; third,
      the    Commission       and the      Council have   failed to       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of
      conduct any investigation into less restrictive safeguard           the European Communities by order of the Bayerisches
       measures. Article 109 ( 2 ) is also breached by reason of          Verwaltungsgericht ( Bavarian Administrative Court),
      the fact that Article 3 ( 4 ) of Regulation ( EC ) No 304/          Regensburg, of 13 March 1997, received at the Court
       97 provides that the amount of the security in respect             Registry on 28 March 1997, for a preliminary ruling in
       of the import licences is to be equal to the customs               the case of Willi Burstein v. Freistaat Bayern on the
       duty applicable on the date on which the application               following questions:
      was lodged, and thus bears no relation to the security
       lodged pursuant to Regulation ( EC ) No 1162/95 ( in
      particular Article 10 ) or to that which must be lodged             A. Is Council Directive 91 /173/EEC ( ] ) of 21 March 1991
       pursuant to Article 4 (2 ) of Regulation ( EC ) No 1522/                to be interpreted as meaning that Member States are
       96 .                                                                    bound only in relation to the prohibition on
                                                                               authorizing the use of pentachlorophenol and its salts
                                                                               and esters in concentrations equal to or greater than
                                                                               0,1 % by mass in substances or preparations placed on
— Misuse of powers : as soon as the OCT Decision                               the market, whereas they may set limit values
       resulted in the development of trade between the OCT                    independently in respect of products which have been
       and the Community and industry within the OCT                           treated with pentachlorophenol ?
       utilizing the opportunities provided by the OCT
      Decision began to expand, the Community attempted
       to counteract these results . The efforts to thwart the            B. If the answer to Question A is in the negative:
       results contemplated by the OCT Decision have not so
       far led to a complete cessation of rice exports to the
       Community. The taking of safeguard measures can still                   Does Directive 91 /173/EEC prohibit a more stringent
       achieve that end without any need for the Council to                    national provision, which was in force before the
       take an unanimous decision for the purpose, such as                     directive was issued, from being applied until the
      would indeed be necessary for a decision to amend the                    Commission takes a decision pursuant to the second
       OCT Decision .                                                          subparagraph of Article 100a (4 ) of the EC Treaty ?
                                                                          C. If the answer to Question B is in the affirmative :
— Breach of Annex IV to the OCT Decision : if the
       Council adopts a new decision (Article 1 ( 7) of
      Annex IV), it must also to that end conduct the                          May that national provision            be applied as from the
       required investigation and itself make the necessary                   time when it is confirmed by           the Commission, even if
       determination . The earlier Commission decision is                      the Commission 's decision is          subsequently challenged
       revised in full and replaced . The Council bears full                   before the Court of Justice          and declared void as a
                                                                               result ?
       responsibility for the new decision. In the present case,
       the Council in fact failed to conduct even a single
       investigation into the scale of imports of rice                         Does it make a difference if the Commission's decision
       originating in the OCT, the price level of OCT rice or                  was annulled on formal grounds only, and
       the ( threatened ) serious distortion of the Community
                                                                               subsequently reissued ? Does that later decision by the
       market in rice. Nor did the Council have before it any                  Commission have retroactive effect ?
      information provided by the Commission that would
       have enabled it to determine whether the inferences
       drawn by the Commission were accurate.                             D. If the answer to Question C is in the negative :
                                                                               May Directive 91/173/EEC be applied in the Member
— Breach of Article 190 of the EC Treaty.                                      States as directly effective law until such time as a
                                                                               final    determination        has   been    made   as  to     the
( 1 ) OJ No L 51 , 21 . 2 . 1997, p . 1 .                                      applicability of the national provision ?
(2 ) OJ No L 263 , 19 . 9 . 1991 , p . 1 .
                                                                          (') OJ No L 85 , 5 . 4 . 1991 , p . 34 .


title: Case C-379/12 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 May 2013 — Arav Holding Srl v H.Eich Srl, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Word mark H.EICH — Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier figurative mark H- SILVIAN HEACH — Refusal of registration)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/48

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 May 2013 — Arav Holding Srl v H.Eich Srl, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-379/12 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Word mark H.EICH - Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier figurative mark H- SILVIAN HEACH - Refusal of registration)
   2013/C 225/85
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Arav Holding Srl (represented by: R. Bocchini, avvocato)

      Other parties to the proceedings: H.Eich Srl (represented by: D. Mainini, T. Rubin, A. Masetti Zannini de Concina, M. Bucarelli and G. Petrocchi, avvocati), Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: L. Rampini, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 19 June 2012 in Case T-557/10 H.Eich v OHIM — Arav, by which the General Court annulled the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 September 2010 relating to opposition proceedings between Arav Holding Srl and H.Eich Srl (Case R 1411/2009-1) — Likelihood of confusion — Incorrect appraisal of the similarity of the marks at issue — Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Arav Holding Srl shall bear the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 303, 6.10.2012


title: Case C-375/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Treviso (Italy) lodged on 18 August 2008 — Criminal proceedings against Luigi Pontini, Emanuele Rech, Dino Bonora, Giovanni Forato, Laura Forato, Adele Adami, Ivo Colomberotto

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Treviso (Italy) lodged on 18 August 2008 — Criminal proceedings against Luigi Pontini, Emanuele Rech, Dino Bonora, Giovanni Forato, Laura Forato, Adele Adami, Ivo Colomberotto
   (Case C-375/08)
   (2008/C 327/11)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Tribunale di Treviso
   Parties to the main proceedings
   Luigi Pontini, Emanuele Rech, Dino Bonora, Giovanni Forato, Laura Forato, Adele Adami, Ivo Colomberotto
   Question referred
   The Tribunale makes a reference to the Court of Justice in order that the latter may make clear what the conditions are for eligibility for premiums for male bovine animals and, in particular, whether the requirement of use of forage areas is sufficient, irrespective of the existence of any valid legal title to make that use lawful (1).

      (1)  OJ L 160, p. 21.


title: Case T-192/13: Order of the General Court of 17 October 2013 — Transworld Oil Computer Centrum and Others v Eurojust

text:
               7.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 359/20

         Order of the General Court of 17 October 2013 — Transworld Oil Computer Centrum and Others v Eurojust
   (Case T-192/13) (1)

   2013/C 359/37
   Language of the case: Dutch
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.


               18.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/11

         Removal from the register of Case C-424/03 (1)

   (2004/C 314/25)
   By order of 23 September 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-424/03: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain.

      (1)   OJ C 275 of 15.11.2003.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 June 2003 in Case T-78/02: Stephan-Harald Voigt v European Central Bank (Officials — Employee of the European Central Bank — Written reprimand)

text:
6.9.2003                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 213/33
L. Mosar, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg,               1.     dismissed the application;
against European Parliament (Agents: J. de Wachter and
G. Knudsen) — application for annulment, first, of the decision
of the Parliament of 27 June 2001 refusing to consider that                2.     ordered each party to bear its own costs.
the applicant’s place of residence is in Nice and apply the
weighting for France to her retirement pension from 1 January
2000 and, second, of the decision of the Parliament of                     (1 ) OJ No C 144 of 15.6.2002.
6 December 2001 expressly rejecting the applicant’s complaint
— the Court of First Instance (single judge: A.W.H. Meij);
I. Natsinas, Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 July 2003 in
which it:
1.     Annuls the decision of the Parliament of 27 June 2001 in so
       far as it applies to the applicant’s pension the weighting
       applicable to Luxembourg for the whole of the year 2000.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
2.     Orders the Parliament to pay all the costs.
                                                                                of 3 April 2003
( 1) OJ C 109, 4.5.2002.
                                                                           in Case T-119/02: Royal Philips Electronics NV v Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                           (Competition — Concentrations — Admissibility — Com-
                                                                           mitments in the course of the first phase of examination —
                                                                           Serious doubts as to compatibility with the common market
                                                                                — Partial referral to national authorities)
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (2003/C 213/65)
                         of 19 June 2003
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
in Case T-78/02: Stephan-Harald Voigt v European Central
                               Bank (1)
(Officials — Employee of the European Central Bank —                       In Case T-119/02, Royal Philips Electronics NV, established at
                        Written reprimand)                                 Eindhoven (Netherlands), represented by E.H. Pijnacker Hordijk
                                                                           and N.G. Cronstedt, lawyers, supported by De –Longhi SpA,
                                                                           established in Treviso (Italy), represented by M. Merola,
                         (2003/C 213/64)                                   I. van Schendel, G. Crichlow and D.P. Domenicucci, lawyers, v
                                                                           Commission of the European Communities (Agents: V. Superti,
                                                                           K. Wiedner and J.E. Flynn), supported by SEB SA, established in
                    (Language of the case: German)                         Écully (France), represented by D. Voillemot and S. Hautbourg,
                                                                           lawyers, and by French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues
                                                                           and F. Million): Application for annulment of, first, the
                                                                           Commission’s decision SG(2002) D/228078 of 8 January
                                                                           2002, based on Article 6(1)(b) and Article 6(2) of Regulation
In Case T-78/02: Stephan-Harald Voigt, member of staff of                  No 4064/89 and Article 57 of the Agreement on the European
the European Central Bank, residing in Frankfurt am Main                   Economic Area, not to oppose the concentration between SEB
(Germany), represented by N. Pflüger, lawyer, against the                  and Moulinex and to declare it compatible with the common
European Central Bank (Agents: V. Saintot and T. Gilliams,                 market and with the Agreement on the European Economic
assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer) — application for annul-                 Area, subject to compliance with the proposed commitments
ment of the decision of 1 March 2002, taken by Mr Noyer,                   (Case COMP/M.2621 — SEB/Moulinex) and, second, the
Vice President of the European Central Bank, to issue a written            Commission’s decision C(2002)38, of 8 January 2002, adopted
reprimand to the applicant — the Court of First Instance                   on the basis of Article 9(2)(a) of Regulation No 4064/89,
(Third Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President, J. Azizi              referring part of the examination of that concentration to the
and M. Jaeger, Judges; B. Pastor, Deputy Registrar, gave a                 French authorities, the Court of First Instance(Third Chamber),
judgment on 19 June 2003, in which it:                                     composed of: K. Lenaerts, President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger,


title: Case T-192/98: Action brought on 7 December 1998 by The Committee of the Cotton and Allied Textile Industries of the European Union (Eurocoton) against the Council of the European Union

text:
5.6.1999              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 160/21
Action brought on 28 October 1998 by Fresh Marine                       Secondly, by failing to inform the applicant of its findings
Company AS against the Commission of the European                       prior to the imposition of provisional measures and not
                         Communities                                    giving the applicant the opportunity to comment on the
                                                                        Commission’s findings, the Commission has infringed the
                                                                        applicant’s right to a fair hearing.
                        (Case T-178/98)
                                                                        (1) OJ L 346, 17.12.1997, p. 63.
                        (1999/C 160/40)
                  (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 28 October 1998 by Fresh Marine                 Action brought on 7 December 1998 by The Committee
Company AS, represented by Jean-François Bellis, with an                of the Cotton and Allied Textile Industries of the Euro-
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch             pean Union (Eurocoton) against the Council of the Euro-
& Wolter,11, rue Goethe.                                                                            pean Union
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                      (Case T-192/98)
— order the Commission to pay damages to it in the total                                         (1999/C 160/41)
     amount of NOK 2 115 000, and
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
— order the Commission to bear all the costs of the proceed-
     ings.
                                                                        An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                        brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                        Communities on 7 December 1998 by the Committee of the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Cotton and Allied Textile Industries of the European Union
                                                                        (Eurocoton), represented by Clive Stanbrook QC and Professor
                                                                        Alan Dashwood with an address for service in Luxembourg at
The applicant, a limited company established under the laws             the Chambers of Arsène Kronshagen, 22, rue Marie Adélaïde.
of Norway, is specialised in the selling of farmed Atlantic
salmon. With effect from 18 December 1997 the Commission
imposed provisional anti-dumping and countervailing duties              The applicant claims that the Court should:
on certain imports of farmed Atlantic salmon originating in
Norway (1).                                                             — declare void, pursuant to articles 173 and 174 EC, the
                                                                            Council’s decision to reject the Commission’s proposal for
                                                                            a Regulation (1) imposing definitive anti-dumping duties
The applicant estimates the damage suffered as a result of the              on imports of unbleached cotton fabric from India,
introduction of provisional measures (in particular deprivation             Indonesia, Pakistan, Turkey, China and Egypt, and (2)
of a significant part of the revenues expected from the 1997                collecting the provisional duties imposed by Regulation
Christmas sales) to NOK 1 115 000. In addition to the damage                (EC) No 773/98 of 7 April 1998, and
inflicted upon it in the form of lost sales on the Community
market, the applicant claims that it has faced and will                 — order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the
continue to face substantial costs in re-establishing itself on             Council.
the Community market. The applicant considers it reasonable
to estimate this damage to amount to NOK 1 000 000.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant submits that the Commission has committed a
flagrant breach of two superior rules of law for the protection         The grounds and arguments are similar to those invoked in
of the individual by imposing provisional antidumping and               case T-213/97 (1).
countervailing duties on it.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997, p. 23.
Firstly, the Commission has failed to discharge its duty of due
care and proper administration by failing to clarify the
applicant’s monitoring report prior to the imposition of
provisional measures.


title: Case T-329/03: Action brought on 25 September 2003 by Ricci Fabio Andrés against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
15.11.2003            EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 275/53
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        Action brought on 25 September 2003 by Ricci Fabio
                                                                       Andrés against the Commission of the European Com-
                                                                                munities
The contested decision concerns an agreement between the
applicant, O2, and T-Mobile Deutschland GmbH. The agree-                                         (Case T-329/03)
ment provides for infrastructure sharing and national roaming
for the third generation of mobile telecommunications in the
German market.                                                                                (2003/C 275/89)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
The agreement was notified to the Commission and O2 and T-
Mobile requested negative clearance under Article 81(1) EC
and Article 53(1) EEA, or in the alternative for an exemption
under Article 81(3) EC and Article 53(3) EEA. Negative
clearance was granted in respect of the infrastructure sharing         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
provisions. The Commission found however that the national             ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
roaming provisions restricted competition, but granted indi-           European Communities on 25 September 2003 by Ricci Fabio
vidual exemptions for these provisions under Article 81(3) Ec          Andrés, represented by Massimo Condinanzi, avvocato.
and Article 53(3) EEA for specified periods of time.
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant seeks the annulment of the specific provisions
of the decision that address the restrictions of competition           1.    Annul the decision rejecting the applicant’s candidature
alleged to flow from national roaming, namely article 2                      in the competition COMR/B/04/2000 — Radiation pro-
and 3(a) of the contested decision. The applicant submits that               tection, notified to the applicant by letter of 28 November
the Commission’s reasoning errs in law and is insufficient.                  2002, no. B01-HR/RRA/BDU/D (2002) 14307, from the
                                                                             Director of DG JRC, Mr Jean-Pierre Vandersteen;
                                                                       2.    Order the Commission to pay the costs.
Firstly, the applicant claims that there is no restriction on
competition within the meaning of Article 81(1) EC or
Article 53(1) EEA. According to the applicant, the decision
does not rest on an analysis of the actual effects of the
agreement on competition. The Commission would simply                  Pleas in law and main arguments
rely on the assumption that the purchase by one network
operator of network services from another operator will
restrict competition between the two on coverage, quality,
transmission rates or wholesale prices. The applicant submits          The present action is brought against the decision contained
furthermore that this assumption is contradicted by the                in the letter of 28 November 2002 of the Director of JRC
Commission’s own factual findings and by the case-law of the           Resources in Ispra by which the applicant, who was none the
Court and the practice of the Commission.                              less on the reserve list for the selection procedure COMR/B/
                                                                       04/2000, was notified that he did not satisfy all the necessary
                                                                       requirements for recruitment, thereby excluding him from the
                                                                       recruitment procedure.
The applicant claims secondly that the alleged restrictions of
competition do not flow from an agreement within the
meaning of Article 81(1) EC or Article 53(1) EEA, but rather           In support of his pleas the applicant alleges:
result from the unilateral actions of the applicant. According
to the applicant, the agreement does not contain any provision
restricting the competition by the applicant on coverage,              —     Breach of the independence and powers of the selection
quality, transmission rates and wholesale prices, and any                    board for the competition in question.
restriction that could arise from the agreement, would be the
result of the unilateral commercial decisions of the applicant.        —     Breach of the vacancy notice by failing to consider that it
The applicant therefore submits that the agreement is not the                allowed access to a Category C post. It is stated in this
cause of the alleged restriction on competition.                             regard that the vacancy notice was drawn up with
                                                                             reference to access to Category C3-B5/B3 in the scientific
                                                                             service. The defendant erred in stating, after the compe-
                                                                             tition, that the selection procedure was for access exclus-
                                                                             ively to a Category B post.
 ---pagebreak--- C 275/54              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                    15.11.2003
—    Breach of the vacancy notice in that the Commission, in                     Removal from the register of Case T-58/02 (1)
     disregard of the decision made by the selection board,
     erred in its assessment of the applicant’s professional                                       (2003/C 275/91)
     qualifications, which perfectly matched the requirements
     set out in the vacancy notice and qualified him for                                    (Language of the Case: English)
     admission also to a Category B post.
—    Breach of the principle of legitimate expectations and of            By order of 15 July 2003 the President of the Second Chamber
     the principles of sound administration.                              of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                          ordered the removal from the register of Case T-58/02:
                                                                          Kabushiki Kaisha Kenwood v Office for Harmonisation in the
                                                                          Internal Market.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 131 of 1.6.2002.
       Removal from the register of Case T-33/01 (1)
                        (2003/C 275/90)
                  (Language of the Case: English)                              Removal from the register of Case T-143/03 R (1)
                                                                                (2003/C 275/92)
By order of 24 June 2003 the President of the Fifth Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                                   (Language of the Case: Dutch)
ordered the removal of the name of Kirch Media GmbH & Co
KgaA from the register of Case T-33/01: Kirch Media GmbH
& Co KgaA and Kirchmedia WM AG v Commission of the                        By order of 17 July 2003 the President of the Court of First
European Communities.                                                     Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                          from the register of Case T-143/03: Elisabeth Saskia Smit v
(1) OJ C 134 of 5.5.2001.
                                                                          Europol.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.


title: Case T-167/17: Action brought on 16 March 2017 — RV v Commission

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/56

         Action brought on 16 March 2017 — RV v Commission
   (Case T-167/17)
   (2017/C 144/76)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: RV (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. De Montigny, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of 21 December 2016 of the Director-General of the Directorate-General for Human Resources to place the applicant on leave in the interests of the service and to retire the applicant automatically with effect from 1 April 2017, pursuant to the fifth paragraph of Article 42c of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements and that an unrestricted delegation of the powers of the appointing authority to apply Article 42c of the Staff Regulations is unlawful. It is also alleged that there has been infringement of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that Article 42c of the Staff Regulations is unlawful, in so far as it disregards the recitals of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1023/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 15), in particular the possibility of making it easier for officials to work until the age of 67 or, in exceptional circumstances, until the age of 70.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality, the principle of legitimate expectations and the duty to have regard to the welfare of staff. It is also alleged that there has been a manifest error of assessment in the present case.


title: Judgment of the court of first instance of 18 March2004 in Case T-67/02: Léopold Radauer v Council of the European Union(Officials — Transfer of the flat-rate redemption value of retirement pensionrights acquired in the course of professional activities prior to entry intothe service of the Communities — Calculation of the years of pensionable service— Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — General implementingprovisions — Principle of equal treatment — Free movement of workers)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/57

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 18 March 2004
   in Case T-67/02: Léopold Radauer v Council of the European Union (1)

   (Officials - Transfer of the flat-rate redemption value of retirement pension rights acquired in the course of professional activities prior to entry into the service of the Communities - Calculation of the years of pensionable service - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - General implementing provisions - Principle of equal treatment - Free movement of workers)
   (2004/C 106/111)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-67/02: Léopold Radauer, an official of the Council of the European Union, residing in Brussels, represented by G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, avocats, against Council of the European Union (Agent: F. Anton) – application for annulment of the Council decision of 17 April 2001 calculating the applicant's years of pensionable service following transfer to the Community scheme of the flat-rate redemption value of the retirement pension rights which he had acquired under the Austrian scheme – the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: R. García Valdecasas, President, P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar, delivered a judgment on 18 March 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               (1)

               The application is dismissed.

               (2)

               The parties shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 97 of 20.04.02.


13.12.2003            EN                   Official Journal of the European Union                                    C 304/21
       Removal from the register of Case C-75/03 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-200/03 (1)
                       (2003/C 304/35)                                                    (2003/C 304/36)
By order of 10 September 2003 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal            By order of 17 September 2003 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-75/03: Commission of the               Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
European Communities v Ireland.                                    from the register of Case C-200/03: Commission of the
                                                                   European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
(1) OJ C 101 of 26.4.2003.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 158 of 5.7.2003.


title: Case T-157/15: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2017 — Estonia v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Expenditure incurred by Estonia — Cross compliance — Obligation to state reasons — Proportionality — Principle of sound administration — Legal certainty)

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2017 — Estonia v Commission
   (Case T-157/15) (1)

   ((EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure incurred by Estonia - Cross compliance - Obligation to state reasons - Proportionality - Principle of sound administration - Legal certainty))
   (2017/C 283/48)
   Language of the case: Estonian

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Estonia (represented initially by K. Kraavi-Käerdi, subsequently by N. Grünberg, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Commission (represented by: A. Sauka and E. Randvere, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/103 of 16 January 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2015 L 16, p. 33) to the extent that it concerns the expenditure incurred by the Republic of Estonia amounting to EUR 691 746,53.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Estonia to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 190, 8.6.2015.


C 48/22               EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                20.2.1999
Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-388/97 and                  Removal from the register of Case C-409/97 (1)
                          C-389/97 (1)                                                    (1999/C 48/44)
                        (1999/C 48/40)
                                                                  By order of 19 November 1998 the Court of Justice of the
By order of 11 November 1998, the President of the                European Communities (First Chamber) has ordered the
Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the          removal from the register of Case C-409/97: Commission
removal from the register of Joined Cases C-388/97 and            of the European Communities v. Grand Duchy of
C-389/97 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the             Luxembourg.
Conseil d'EÂtat): Fromagerie Philipona SA and Others v.
French Republic.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 41, 7.2.1998.
(1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998.
                                                                        Removal from the register of Case C-415/97 (1)
      Removal from the register of Case C-253/98 (1)                                      (1999/C 48/45)
                        (1999/C 48/41)
                                                                  By order of 24 November 1998, the President of the
                                                                  Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
By order of 11 November 1998 the Court of Justice of the          removal from the register of Case C-415/97: Commission
European Communities has ordered the removal from the             of the European Communities v. Italian Republic.
register of Case C-253/98: Commission of the European
Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 41, 7.2.1998.
(1) OJ C 278, 5.9.1998.
                                                                        Removal from the register of Case C-167/98 (1)
      Removal from the register of Case C-397/97 (1)                                      (1999/C 48/46)
                        (1999/C 48/42)
                                                                  By order of 2 December 1998 the Court of Justice of the
By order of 13 November 1998 the Court of Justice of the          European Communities has ordered the removal from the
European Communities has ordered the removal from the             register of Case C-167/98 (request for a preliminary ruling
register of Case C-397/97: Commission of the European             from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Westdeutsche Landesbank
Communities v. Italian Republic.                                  Girozentrale v. Johannes Leon.
(1) OJ C 26, 24.1.1998.                                           (1) OJ C 209, 4.7.1998.
      Removal from the register of Case C-274/94 (1)                   Removal from the register of Case C-305/98 P (1)
                        (1999/C 48/43)                                                    (1999/C 48/47)
By order of 17 November 1998 the Court of Justice of the          By order of 7 December 1998 the Court of Justice of the
European Communities has ordered the removal from the             European Communities has ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-274/94: United Kingdom of Great                register of Case 305/98 P: David T. Keeling v. Office for
Britain and Northern Ireland v. Commission of the                 Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
European Communities.                                             Designs).
(1) OJ C 351, 10.12.1994.                                         (1) OJ C 312, 10.10.1998.


title: Case C-81/16 P: Appeal brought on 12 February 2016 by the Kingdom of Spain against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 26 November 2015 in Case T-461/13 Spain v Commission

text:
               4.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/21

         Appeal brought on 12 February 2016 by the Kingdom of Spain against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 26 November 2015 in Case T-461/13 Spain v Commission
   (Case C-81/16 P)
   (2016/C 118/22)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

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

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Grant the appeal and set aside the judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015 in Case T-461/13 Spain v Commission;

               —

               Annul Commission Decision 2014/489/UE (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 defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Error of law relating to the control of Member States regarding the definition and application of a service of general economic interest. As regards the first condition laid down in the judgment in Altmark, (2) the General Court refused to check whether or not the Commission had examined all the relevant factors in assessing the definition of a public service. Likewise, the General Court failed to check whether or not the Commission had examined all the relevant elements in order to assess whether the fourth condition laid down in the judgment in Altmark had been fulfilled. Accordingly, the General Court infringed the discretion allowing a Member State to organise its public service.

      Error of law relating to judicial control of the compatibility of State aid. In the first place, the General Court failed to check the accuracy of the facts on which the Commission based its analysis. Accordingly, the judgment fails to review the reliability, consistency and relevance of the data used by the Commission. Finally, the General Court failed to check the validity of the Commission’s conclusions.

      (1)  OJ 2014 L 217, p. 52.

      (2)  EU:C:2003:415.


title: Case F-44/13: Action brought on 8 May 2013 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/61

         Action brought on 8 May 2013 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-44/13)
   2013/C 207/107
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the Commission decisions concerning the grant of compensation for material damage suffered by the applicant because of the incorrect calculation of the allowance for living conditions.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Commission decision of 25 January 2013 received by the applicant on 28 January 2013 on the partial annulment of the PMO.1 decision of 30 March 2012 in so far as it limits to 1 March 2007 the applicant’s claim to be granted compensation for the material damage suffered because of the incorrect calculation of the allowance for living conditions to which the applicant has been entitled since 22 September 2002 and in so far as it takes account of the orphan’s pension of the applicant’s daughter between 1 March 2007 and 31 August 2008 for the purposes of calculating that compensation;

               —

               annul the Commission decision of 4 February 2013 received by the applicant on 5 February 2013 and her wage statement for February 2013 as regards the RRV correction code relating to compensation for the abovementioned damage imposed on 1 March 2007, while maintaining the effects of that statement until the adoption of a new bulletin correctly applying Article 10 of Annex 10 to the Staff Regulations from 31 December 2011 until 22 September 2002;

               —

               order the Commission to pay a provisional additional sum of EUR 11 000,00, for the loss in respect of the allowance for living conditions suffered by the applicant between 22 September 2002 and 31 August 2008 and to pay interest calculated on the full damage suffered in that connection between 22 September 2002 and 31 December 2011, payable as from the dates when such payments are respectively due until the actual day of payment and calculated on the basis of the rates applied by the ECB to its principal refinancing operations over the period concerned, plus two points;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-313/08: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2003/58/EC — Company law — Documents and particulars subject to disclosure — Letters and order forms — Penalties — Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/15

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-313/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2003/58/EC - Company law - Documents and particulars subject to disclosure - Letters and order forms - Penalties - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)
   2009/C 153/29
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

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

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I. Bruni, Agent, and G. Fiengo, avvocato dello Stato)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the provisions necessary to comply with Article 1(4), (5) and (6) of Directive 2003/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2003 amending Council Directive 68/151/EEC as regards disclosure requirements in respect of certain types of companies (OJ 2003 L 221, p. 13)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Article 1(4), (5) and (6) of Directive 2003/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2003 amending Council Directive 68/151/EEC, as regards disclosure requirements in respect of certain types of companies, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 30.8.2008.


title: Case C-335/02: Action brought on 20 September 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
C 261/10               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     26.10.2002
The Commission claims that the Court should:                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     declare that, by failing to adopt all the necessary measures        —     Declare that, by excluding absolutely the application of
      prescribed by Council Regulation No 3508/92 (1) estab-                    the rate of levy in discharge to income arising from the
      lishing an integrated administration and control system                   investments and contracts referred to in Articles 125-0 A
      for certain Community aid schemes, the Hellenic Republic                  and 125 A of the Code général des impôts (General Tax
      has failed to fulfil its obligations under that regulation;               Code), where the debtor is not resident or established in
                                                                                France, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obli-
                                                                                gations under Articles 49 and 56 EC;
—     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                          —     Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
Under the regulation at issue, the Member States were obliged             The income referred to in Article 125 A of the Code general
to establish by 1 January 1997 an integrated system including             des impôts (CGI) (income from interest arising from arrears
a computerised data base, an alphanumeric identification                  and from all kinds of State bonds, stocks, participation share
system for agricultural parcels, an alphanumeric system for               certificates, stocks and other certificates of indebtedness,
the identification and registration of animals, standardised              deposits, guarantees and current accounts) and that referred to
processing of aid applications and an integrated control system           in Article 125-0 A of the CGI (income from certificates or
(Article 2).                                                              bond investments and other similar investments), is subject to
                                                                          income tax. None the less, the levy in discharge (which is often
                                                                          attractive because its rate is generally lower than the marginal
                                                                          rate of tax resulting from the application of the progressive
The Greek authorities have not yet established an integrated
                                                                          scale of tax on income and of splitting income) can be applied
system of that kind, and the alternative system which they
                                                                          to it only if the debtor is resident or established in France.
apply for checking areas and requests for payment has
repeatedly been considered inadequate and has been the cause
of corrections in the clearing of accounts.
                                                                          The Commission takes the view that the above constitutes a
                                                                          restriction on the freedom to provide services and on the free
                                                                          movement of capitals contrary to Articles 49 and 56 of the EC
( 1) OJ L 355, 5.12.1992, p. 1.                                           Treaty, in that the more generally favourable levy in discharge
                                                                          is not applied to income collected by French residents from a
                                                                          debtor which is not resident or established in France, even if
                                                                          the person in question is able to provide evidence that it fulfils
                                                                          all the conditions in which the levy in discharge is applied to
                                                                          income obtained from a debtor resident or established in
                                                                          France.
Action brought on 20 September 2002 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against the French
                               Republic
                                                                          Action brought on 20 September 2002 by the Com-
                          (Case C-334/02)                                 mission of the European Communities against the Grand
                                                                                Duchy of Luxembourg
                          (2002/C 261/16)
                                                                                (Case C-335/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 261/17)
An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 20 Septem-
ber 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by R. Lyal and Ch. Giolito, acting as Agents, with            An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
an address for service in Luxembourg.                                     brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
 ---pagebreak--- 26.10.2002             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 261/11
ties on 20 September 2002 by the Commission of the                       represented by A. Bordes, acting as Agent, with an address for
European Communities, represented by D. Martin and H. Krep-              service in Luxembourg.
pel, acting as Agents.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     Declare that, by failing to define the necessary capabilities
                                                                         1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
      and aptitudes for persons designated for activities relating
                                                                               within the prescribed period the laws, regulations or
      to protective and preventive measures, the Grand Duchy
      of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under                 administrative provisions necessary to comply with:
      Articles 10 and 249 EC and Article 7(8) of Council
      Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduc-
      tion of measures to encourage improvements in the safety                 a)    Articles 4, 5, 6, 7, 8(3) and 9 of Council Directive
      and health of workers at work (1);                                             96/22/EC of 29 April 1996 concerning the prohib-
                                                                                ition on the use in stockfarming of certain substances
                                                                                having a hormonal or thyrostatic action and of
—     Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.                          β-agonists, and repealing Directives 81/602/EEC,
                                                                                88/146/EEC and 88/299/EEC ( 1), and
                                                                               b)    Articles 9a(1), 9b, first indent, 13(b) and 15(2) of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                      Council Directive 96/23/EC of 29 April 1996 on
                                                                                measures to monitor certain substances and residues
                                                                                thereof in live animals and animal products and
The Luxembourg authorities do not deny that they have failed,                        repealing Directives 85/358/EEC and 86/469/EEC
to date, to adopt laws or regulations defining the necessary                         and Decisions 89/187/EEC, 91/664/EEC ( 2),
capabilities and aptitude for persons designated for activities
relating to protective and preventive measures.
                                                                               France has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
                                                                               abovementioned directives and the third paragraph of
                                                                               Article 249 and the first paragraph of Article 10 of the
The Commission therefore takes the view that the Grand                         EC Treaty;
Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under
the EC Treaty and Directive 89/391.
                                                                         2.    Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
( 1) OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Under Article 249 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
Action brought on 26 September 2002 by the Com-                          directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
mission of the European Communities against the French                   each Member State to which it is addressed, Member States are
                             Republic                                    required to observe the time-limits laid down in directives for
                                                                         their transposition. That time-limit expired on 1 July 1997
                                                                         without the French Republic having brought into force the
                          (Case C-342/02)                                necessary provisions in order to comply with the directive
                                                                         referred to in the Commission’s application.
                          (2002/C 261/18)
                                                                         (1 ) OJ 1996 L 125, p. 3.
                                                                         (2 ) OJ 1996 L 125, p. 10.
An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 Septem-
ber 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) of 3 December 1998 in Case C-337/96: Commission of the European Communities v. Industrial Refuse & Coal Energy Ltd (Arbitration clause - Breach of contract)

text:
23.1.1999             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 20/11
Ferriere di Servola SpA (AFS) Ð on the interpretation of            company incorporated under English law, whose
Article 92 of the EC Treaty Ð the Court (Fifth Chamber),            registered office is at Oxted (the United Kingdom),
composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,            represented initially by Kanaar & Co., Solicitors, Ð
J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann, D. A. O.                     Application for the recovery of moneys advanced to the
Edward and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), Judges; N.                     defendant by the Commission in the context of a
Fennelly, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for          demonstration project relating to the conversion of an
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 1 December 1998              existing refuse transfer station to electrical power
in which it has ruled:                                              generation from the preparation of raw urban refuse and a
                                                                    counterclaim for payment of the balance of the maximum
                                                                    subsidy contractually provided for and for damages Ð the
                                                                    Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann
Application to an undertaking within the meaning of                 (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, D. A. O. Edward
Article 80 of the ECSC Treaty of a system of the kind               and M. Wathelet, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate-General; R.
introduced by Law No 95/79 of 3 April 1979, and                     Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 December
derogating from the rules of ordinary law relating to               1998, in which it:
insolvency, is to be regarded as giving rise to the grant of
State aid, which is prohibited by Article 4(c) of the ECSC
Treaty, where it is established that the undertaking
                                                                    1. Orders Industrial Refuse & Coal Energy Ltd to
                                                                        reimburse to the Commission the sum of ECU
                                                                        191 438, together with the sum of ECU 50 796 by
Ð has been permitted to continue trading in                             way of interest in respect of the period from 18 August
    circumstances in which it would not have been                       1987 to 23 November 1990, together with interest at
    permitted to do so if the rules of ordinary law relating            the annual rate of 8,15 % from 20 October 1993 on
    to insolvency had been applied, or                                  the sum of ECU 191 438;
Ð has enjoyed one or more advantages, such as a State               2. Dismisses the counterclaim lodged by Industrial
    guarantee, a reduced rate of tax, exemption from the                Refuse & Coal Energy Ltd;
    obligation to pay fines and other pecuniary penalties
    or waiver in practice of public debts wholly or in part,
    which could not have been claimed by another                    3. Orders Industrial Refuse & Coal Energy Ltd to pay
    insolvent undertaking in connection with the                        the costs.
    application of the rules of ordinary law relating to
    insolvency.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 388, 21.12.1996.
(1) OJ C 228, 26.7.1997.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 3 December 1998
                       (First Chamber)
                                                                    in Case C-368/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                     of 3 December 1998                             the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's
in Case C-337/96: Commission of the European                        Bench Division): The Queen v. The Licensing Authority
  Communities v. Industrial Refuse & Coal Energy Ltd (1)            established by the Medicines Act 1968 (acting by The
                                                                                Medicines Control Agency) (1)
         (Arbitration clause Ð Breach of contract)
                                                                    (Medicinal products Ð Marketing authorisation Ð
                        (1999/C 20/17)                                  Abridged procedure Ð Essentially similar products)
                                                                                (1999/C 20/18)
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
In Case C-337/96: Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: Thomas F. Cusack and Fergus                     In Case C-368/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
Randolph) v. Industrial Refuse & Coal Energy Ltd, a                 of the EC Treaty by the High Court of Justice (England &