title: Case C-420/01: Action brought on 23 October 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
C 31/2                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      2.2.2002
R. Torrent, J. Huber and G. Houttuin), supported by Kingdom              GmbH, 4. Haus der Technik DI A. Gobiet und DI F. Schweig-
of Spain (Agent: R. Silva de Lapuerta), Italian Republic (Agents:        hofer Ziviltechniker GmbH, 5. Hopferwieser, Dipl.-Ing. Walter,
U. Leanza, assisted by F. Quadri), and Commission of the                 6. GC General Contract DI Wolfgang Wisserodt Ingenieurge-
European Communities (Agents: P.J. Kuijper and T. van Rijn)              sellschaft m.b.H, a bidding consortium, against Autobahnen-
— application for annulment of Council Regulation (EC)                   und Schnellstraßen- Finanzierungs-AG (ASFINAG) on the
No 1036/97 of 2 June 1997 introducing safeguard measures                 following questions:
in respect of imports of rice originating in the overseas
countries and territories (OJ 1997 L 151, p. 8) — the Court,             Question 1
composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P. Jann and
F. Macken (Rapporteur) (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann,             Is Article 1(3) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 Decem-
D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, J.P. Puissochet, L. Sevón,                ber 1989 (1) on the coordination of the laws, regulations and
M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen and V. Skouris, Judges; P. Léger,              administrative provisions relating to the application of review
Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the             procedures to the award of public supply and public works
Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 November 2001, in                  contracts to be interpreted as meaning that the review
which it:                                                                procedure must be available to any undertaking which has
                                                                         submitted a bid, or applied to participate, in a public procure-
                                                                         ment procedure?
1.    Dismisses the action as inadmissible.
                                                                         In the event that the answer to Question 1 is no:
2.    Orders the Netherlands Antilles to pay the costs.
                                                                         Question 2
3.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the Italian Republic and the
                                                                         Is the abovementioned provision to be understood as meaning
      Commission of the European Communities to bear their own
                                                                         that an undertaking only has or had an interest in a particular
      costs.
                                                                         public contract if — in addition to its participating in the
                                                                         public procurement procedure — it takes or took all steps
                                                                         available to it under national law to prevent the contract from
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.                                                being awarded to another bidder and so to secure the award
                                                                         of the contract to itself?
                                                                         (1) OJ L 395, p. 33.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverga-
beamt Wien by order of 8 October 2001 in review
proceedings brought by 1. FRITSCH, CHIARI & PART-
NER, Ziviltechniker GmbH, 2. Büro Axis Ingenieurleis-
tungen, 3. Vasko & Partner Ingenieure, Ziviltechniker für                Action brought on 23 October 2001 by the Commission
Bauwesen GmbH, 4. Haus der Technik DI A. Gobiet und                      of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
DI F. Schweighofer Ziviltechniker GmbH, 5. Hopferwie-
ser, Dipl.-Ing. Walter, 6. GC General Contract DI Wolfgang                                        (Case C-420/01)
Wisserodt Ingenieurgesellschaft m.b.H, a bidding consor-
tium against Autobahnen- und Schnellstraßen- Finan-
                   zierungs-AG (ASFINAG)                                                           (2002/C 31/04)
                         (Case C-410/01)
                                                                         An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
                          (2002/C 31/03)                                 Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 October
                                                                         2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                         represented by Hendrik Van Lier and Roberto Amorosi, acting
                                                                         as Agents.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 8 October 2001 by
the Bundesvergabeamt Wien (Austrian Federal Procurement                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
Office, Vienna), which was received at the Court Registry on
16 October 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the review                  —     Declare that, by applying rules to drinks manufactured
proceedings brought by 1. FRITSCH, CHIARI & PARTNER,                           and marketed in other Member States prohibiting the
Ziviltechniker GmbH, 2. Büro Axis Ingenieurleistungen,                         marketing in Italy of energy drinks containing caffeine in
3. Vasko & Partner Ingenieure, Ziviltechniker für Bauwesen                     excess of a certain limit, without showing how such a
 ---pagebreak--- 2.2.2002               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 31/3
      limit is proportionate and necessary for the protection of       recovery the trainee’s maintenance claim against his parents,
      human health, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its      which arises under private law and has been transferred to the
      obligations under Articles 28 and 30 of the EC Treaty;           plaintiff by statute, in respect of the period for which the
      and                                                              education grant was paid?
—     Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                       Action brought on 9 November 2001 by the Commission
                                                                       of the European Communities against the United
The competent Italian authorities prohibit the marketing of                                           Kingdom
energy drinks which, although lawfully manufactured and
marketed in other Member States, have a caffeine content in
excess of 125 mg/l. Such a prohibition constitutes an obstacle                                   (Case C-434/01)
to the free movement of goods prohibited by Article 28 EC.
                                                                                (2002/C 31/06)
In the present case, Article 30 EC cannot properly be relied
upon by the authorities in order to justify the abovementioned
prohibition on marketing of energy drinks inasmuch as the
                                                                       An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the
Italian authorities have not indicated on what scientific data
                                                                       Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 November
they based the adoption of the disputed prohibitive provisions
                                                                       2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
nor demonstrated the extent to which a caffeine content in
                                                                       represented by Richard Wainwright, acting as agent, with an
excess of 125 mg/l is harmful to public health.
                                                                       address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                       The Applicant requests that the Court should:
                                                                       —     declare that, by failing to ensure that the United Kingdom
                                                                             is in compliance with its obligations under Articles 12
                                                                             and 16 of Directive 92/43/EEC (1), the United Kingdom
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesge-                          has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive:
richtshof by order of 26 September 2001 in the case of
               Freistaat Bayern v Jan Blijdenstein                     —     order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.
                         (Case C-433/01)
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
                          (2002/C 31/05)
                                                                       The Commission maintains that, by allowing decisions of local
                                                                       planning authorities, who are not relevant authorities for the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 purposes of Article 12 and 16 of the directive, to pre-empt
European Communities by order of 26 September 2001 by                  decisions by the national conservation bodies, the Agriculture
the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Supreme Court), which was               Minister or Secretary of State for the Environment, as to
received at the Court Registry on 9 November 2001, for a               whether a derogation under Article 16(1) can be granted and
preliminary ruling in the case of Freistaat Bayern v Jan               thus failing to correctly apply the two-pronged test laid down
Blijdenstein on the following question:                                in the first paragraph of Article 16(1) as well as the test of
                                                                       showing that imperative reasons of overriding interest exist,
                                                                       the United Kingdom is in breach of its obligations under
                                                                       Articles 12 and 16 of the Directive.
May a plaintiff rely on the special rule on jurisdiction in
Article 5(2) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on
Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and             (1) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation
Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention on the                    of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ L 206,
accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese                       22.7.1992, p. 7).
Republic of 26 May 1989, where its authorities have paid an
education grant to a trainee for a certain period of time under
public law and the plaintiff seeks to enforce in an action for


title: Case T-253/04: Action brought on 25 June 2004 by Zubeyir Aydar on behalf of Kongra-Gel and 10 others against the Council of the European Union

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/28

         Action brought on 25 June 2004 by Zubeyir Aydar on behalf of Kongra-Gel and 10 others against the Council of the European Union
   (Case T-253/04)
   (2004/C 262/55)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 25 June 2004 by Zubeyir Aydar, Fribourg, Switzerland, Haydar Isik, Maisoich, Germany, Kazim Baba, Berlin, Germany, George Aryo, Oldenzaal, Holland, Sait Uzun, Egg/Flaw, Switzerland, Lord Nicholas Rea, London, United Kingdom, Hugo Charlton, London, United Kingdom, Roger Tomkins, Droucha, Cyprus, Mark Thomas, London, United Kingdom, Hugo Van Rompaye, Geel, Belguim and Jean Paul Nunez, Montpellier, France, represented by Mr M. Muller, Mr E. Grieves and Ms C. Vine Barristers and Ms G. Pierce Solicitor.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the part of the Council Decision 2004/306/EC of 2 April 2004 proscribing KONGRA-GEL as an alias of the PKK and Regulation 2508/2001;

               —

               alternatively declare Regulation 2508/2001 illegal in respect of its application to the applicants;

               —

               to take such further action as the Court may in its wisdom deem appropriate;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs incurred by the applicants in the present proceedings;

               —

               order the Council to pay damages.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants allege that in taking its decision to proscribe KONGRA-GEL as an alias of the PKK, the Council acted in breach of the EC Treaty both in respect of substance and procedure.
   The applicants submit that the Council substantively breached the EC Treaty by virtue of the following:

               —

               Failure to apply accessible, objective criteria to the correct facts;

               —

               failure to respect fundamental rights including rights to freedom of expression and association protected under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights;

               —

               breach of principles of Community law such as proportionality, certainty, equality and the right to a fair hearing;

               —

               missuse of power.

         Furthermore, the applicants submit that the Council breached the EC Treaty in respect of the procedure in the following ways:

               —

               by failing to afford the applicants an opportunity to make representations prior to the proscription and/or to provide the applicants a fair hearing an/or an effective remedy by which to challenge the factual assertions relied upon by the Council, within the meaning of Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights;

               —

               by failing to provide accurate or adequate reasons as to the legal and factual basis of its decision.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 September 2001 in Case T-160/99: Gunnar Svantesson and Others v Council of the European Union (Officials — Internal competition — Composition of selection board)

text:
C 369/12                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                 22.12.2001
                                                         COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                      of 13 September 2001
                                                                                of 19 September 2001
in Case T-160/99: Gunnar Svantesson and Others v
               Council of the European Union (1)                          in Case T-335/99: Henkel KGaA v Office for Harmonis-
                                                                          ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                                (OHIM) (1)
(Officials — Internal competition — Composition of selec-
                             tion board)
                                                                          (Community trade mark — Shape of a product for washing
                          (2001/C 369/18)                                 machines or dishwashers — Three-dimensional mark —
                                                                          Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation
                                                                                (EC) No 40/94)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (2001/C 369/19)
In Case T-160/99: Gunnar Svantesson, an official of the
Council of the European Union, residing in Brussels, Lena                                    (Language of the case: German)
Hellsten, an official of the Council of the European Union,
residing in Brussels. Monica Hägg, former official of the
Council of the European Union, residing in Brussels, represent-
ed by M.-A. Lucas, avocat, with an address for service in
Luxembourg, against Council of the European Union (Agents:
M. Bauer and I. Lopez Cardoso) — application for the
                                                                          In Case T-335/99: Henkel KGaA, established in Düsseldorf
annulment of the decisions of the selection board for Internal
                                                                          (Germany), represented by H.F. Wissel and C. Osterrieth,
Competition COUNCIL/LA/262 not to mark the optional
                                                                          lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
papers sat by the applicants and not to admit them to the oral
                                                                          Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
tests for that competition, and for the annulment of the whole
                                                                          and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: A. von Mühlendahl, D. Schen-
of that competition — the Court of First Instance (Fourth
                                                                          nen and S. Laitinen) — application brought against the
Chamber), composed of P. Mengozzi, President, V. Tiili and
                                                                          decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for
R.M. Moura Ramos, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment
                                                                          Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
on 13 September 2001, in which it:
                                                                          Designs) of 21 September 1999 (Case R 70/1999-3), which
                                                                          was notified to the applicant on 28 September 1999 — the
                                                                          Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of
1.    Annuls the decisions of the selection board for Internal            A.W.H. Meij, President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges;
      Competition COUNCIL/LA/262 not to admit the applicants              D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
      to the oral tests and not to mark their optional papers for the     judgment on 19 September 2001, in which it:
      competition;
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;                         1.    Dismisses the action;
3.    Orders the Council to pay the costs.                                2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
(1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.                                                (1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.


title: Case T-38/13: Action brought on 24 January 2013 — Pedro Group/OHIM — Cortefiel (PEDRO)

text:
               6.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 101/20

         Action brought on 24 January 2013 — Pedro Group/OHIM — Cortefiel (PEDRO)
   (Case T-38/13)
   2013/C 101/44
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Pedro Group Pte Ltd (Singapore, Singapore) (represented by: B. Brandreth, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cortefiel, SA (Madrid, Spain)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul partially the Fourth Board of Appeal’s Decision of 26 November 2012 (Case R 0271/2011-4): Annulment of that part of the Decision that annulled part of the decision of the Opposition Division dated 17 December 2010 and rejected the Applicant’s CTM application for certain goods in class 25;

               —

               Order that the respondent pays the applicant its costs incurred before the Board of Appeal and the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘PEDRO’, for goods and services in classes 18, 25 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 7 541 857

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 1 252 899 of the figurative mark in black and white ‘Pedro del Hierro’ for goods and services in classes 3, 9, 14, 18, 25, 35, and 42 and the International registration No 864 740 claimed to have effect in Bulgaria, Spain and Romania for the figurative mark in black and white ‘Pedro del Hierro’ for goods and services in classes 3, 14, 25 and 35

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision as far as it rejected the opposition for goods in class 25, rejected the application for these goods and dismissed the appeal for the remainder

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b), 15 and 42(2) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-85/07: Action brought on 20 March 2007 — Gabel Industria Tessile v OHIM — Creaciones Garel (GABEL)

text:
               26.5.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 117/26

         Action brought on 20 March 2007 — Gabel Industria Tessile v OHIM — Creaciones Garel (GABEL)
   (Case T-85/07)
   (2007/C 117/41)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Gabel Industria Tessile S.p.A. (Rovellasca, Italy) (represented by: A. Petruzzelli, Avvocato)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Creaciones Garel S.A.
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul, in part, the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 25 January 2007, notified on 29 January 2007, in so far as it refused registration of the Community trade mark applied for — Gabel — under No 3754777 in class 24, since it does not comply with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 40/94;

               —

               uphold the decision of the Second Board of Appeal to proceed with registration of the mark for ‘bath-robes ’in class 25;

               —

               order OHIM to register GABEL as Community trade mark No 3754777 in class 24, for the relevant goods specified in that class, as well as for ‘bath-robes ’in class 25;

               —

               order OHIM to pay all the applicant's costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘GABEL ’(application for registration No 3754777) for goods in classes 24 and 25.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Creaciones Garel S.A.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community figurative mark ‘GAREL ’for goods in classes 24, 25 and 26.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal allowed in part, to the extent that registration of the trade mark is allowed for ‘bath-robes ’(class 25).

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark.


title: Case C-477/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht (Germany) lodged on 24 October 2012 — Hogan Lovells International LLP v Bayer CropScience K.K.

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/21

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht (Germany) lodged on 24 October 2012 — Hogan Lovells International LLP v Bayer CropScience K.K.
   (Case C-477/12)
   2013/C 26/39
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundespatentgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Hogan Lovells International LLP

      Defendant: Bayer CropScience K.K.

      Question referred

   For the purpose of the application of Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1610/96, (1) must account be taken exclusively of a marketing authorisation under Article 4 of Directive 91/414/EEC or Article 8(1) thereof, or can a certificate also be granted on the basis of a marketing authorisation which has been granted under Article 8(4) thereof?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for plant protection products (OJ 1996 L 198, p. 30).


title: Case F-128/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 18 December 2015 — De Nicola v EIB (Civil Service — EIB staff — Appraisal — 2010 staff report — Contested — Internal procedures — Conditions — Withdrawal — Action — Lack of locus standi — Reasonable time — Failure to comply — Manifestly inadmissible)

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/98

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 18 December 2015 — De Nicola v EIB
   (Case F-128/11) (1)

   ((Civil Service - EIB staff - Appraisal - 2010 staff report - Contested - Internal procedures - Conditions - Withdrawal - Action - Lack of locus standi - Reasonable time - Failure to comply - Manifestly inadmissible))
   (2016/C 048/112)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Carlo De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Isola, laywer)

      Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: G. Nuvoli and T. Gilliams, acting as Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application seeking, firstly, annulment of the e-mail messages and decisions of the EIB concerning the administrative procedure relating to the applicant’s performance appraisal for 2010, secondly, annulment of the decision whereby the President of the EIB refused to instigate the settlement procedure before the Conciliation Board, thirdly, annulment of the applicant’s annual appraisal for 2010 in so far as it does not award him ‘exceptional performance’ or ‘very good performance’ and does not propose his promotion to Function D and, finally, an order that the EIB pay compensation for the material and non-material damage sustained.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Mr De Nicola shall bear his own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Investment Bank.

      (1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.2012, p. 21.


title: Case T-720/14: Judgment of the General Court of 30 November 2016 — Rotenberg v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening Ukraine — Freezing of funds — Restrictions on admission to the territories of the Member States — Natural person actively supporting or implementing actions undermining or threatening Ukraine — Natural person benefiting from Russian decision-makers responsible for the annexation of Crimea — Rights of defence — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest errors of assessment — Right to property — Freedom to conduct a business — Right to respect for private life — Proportionality)

text:
               23.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 30 November 2016 — Rotenberg v Council
   (Case T-720/14) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening Ukraine - Freezing of funds - Restrictions on admission to the territories of the Member States - Natural person actively supporting or implementing actions undermining or threatening Ukraine - Natural person benefiting from Russian decision-makers responsible for the annexation of Crimea - Rights of defence - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest errors of assessment - Right to property - Freedom to conduct a business - Right to respect for private life - Proportionality))
   (2017/C 022/29)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Arkady Romanovich Rotenberg (Saint Petersburg, Russia) (represented initially by D. Pannick QC, M. Lester, Barrister, and M. O’Kane, Solicitor, subsequently by D. Pannick and M. Lester, by S. Hey and H. Brunskill, Solicitors, and by Z. Al-Rikabi, Barrister, and finally by D. Pannick, M. Lester and Z. Al-Rikabi)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix and B. Driessen, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment in part of (i) Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP of 17 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 78, p. 16), as amended, first, by Council Decision 2014/508/CFSP of 30 July 2014 (OJ 2014 L 226, p. 23), secondly, by Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/432 of 13 March 2015 (OJ 2015 L 70, p. 47), thirdly, by Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1524 of 14 September 2015 (OJ 2015 L 239, p. 157), and, fourthly, by Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/359 of 10 March 2016 (OJ 2016 L 67, p. 37), and (ii) Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 of 17 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 78, p. 6), as implemented, first, by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 826/2014 of 30 July 2014 (OJ 2014 L 226, p. 16), secondly, by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/427 of 13 March 2015 (OJ 2015 L 70, p. 1), thirdly, by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1514 of 14 September 2015 (OJ 2015 L 239, p. 30), and, fourthly, by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/353 of 10 March 2016 (OJ 2016 L 67, p. 1), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP of 17 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, as amended by Council Decision 2014/508/CFSP of 30 July 2014, and Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 of 17 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 826/2014 of 30 July 2014, in so far as they concern Mr Arkady Romanovich Rotenberg;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 7, 12.1.2015.


               10.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/1

         (2009/C 6/01)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 327, 20.12.2008

   Past publications

      OJ C 313, 6.12.2008

      OJ C 301, 22.11.2008

      OJ C 285, 8.11.2008

      OJ C 272, 25.10.2008

      OJ C 260, 11.10.2008

      OJ C 247, 27.9.2008

   These texts are available on:

               EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu


title: Case C-260/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 11 May 2016 — Aicai Associazione Italiana Corrieri Aerei Internazionali (AICAI) and Others v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico

text:
               19.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/20

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 11 May 2016 — Aicai Associazione Italiana Corrieri Aerei Internazionali (AICAI) and Others v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico
   (Case C-260/16)
   (2016/C 343/31)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Aicai Associazione Italiana Corrieri Aerei Internazionali, Società Dhl Express (Italy) Srl, Federal Express Europe Inc., Società United Parcel Service Italia Ups Srl

      Defendants: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico (Ministry of Economic Development)

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does EU law, in particular Article [2].1, 2.1a and 2.6 of Directive 97/67/EC, (1) as supplemented and amended by Directive 2008/6/EC, (2) preclude the application of national provisions, in particular Article 2(a) and (f) of Legislative Decree No [261]/1999, and Article 1(1)(g) and (r), in conjunction with each other and subparagraph (i), of the ‘Regulation governing qualifying certificates for the provision of postal services to the public’ set out in Annex A to Resolution AGCOM 129/15/CONS of 23 March 2015 and the related ‘Rules governing the procedure for the issue of qualifying certificates for the provision of postal services to the public’, referred to in the Decree of the Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico of 29 July 2015, in so far as they are intended to bring the services of road hauliers, freight-forwarders and express couriers also within the scope of postal services?

               2.

               Does EU law, in particular Articles 9(1) and [2].19 of Directive 97/67/EC, as supplemented and amended by Directive 2008/6/EC, and the principles of proportionality and reasonableness, preclude the application of national provisions, in particular Article 6(1) of Legislative Decree No [261]/1999 and Article 8 of the ‘Regulation governing qualifying certificates for the provision of postal services to the public’ set out in Annex A to Resolution AGCOM 129/15/CONS of 23 March 2015 and the related ‘Rules governing the procedure for the issue of qualifying certificates for the provision of postal services to the public’, referred to in the decree of the Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico of 29 July 2015, in so far as they impose on the suppliers of the services of road hauliers, freight-forwarders and express couriers the requirement to obtain a general authorisation in addition to the authorisation required to guarantee compliance with the essential requirements regarding the supply of postal services?

               3.

               Does EU law, in particular Articles 7(4) and 9(2) of Directive 97/67/EC, as supplemented and amended by Directive 2008/6/EC, preclude the application of national provisions, in particular Articles 6(1bis) and 10(2) of Legislative Decree No 261/1999, and Articles 11(1)(f) and 15(2) of the ‘Regulation governing qualifying certificates for the provision of postal services to the public’, set out in Annex A to Resolution AGCOM 129/15/CONS of 23 March 2015, and Article 9 of the related ‘Rules governing the procedure for the issue of qualifying certificates for the provision of postal services to the public’ referred to in the Decree of the Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico of 29 July 2015, in so far as they impose on the suppliers of services of road hauliers, freight-forwarders and express couriers the burden of contributing to the compensation fund for the universal service?

               4.

               Does EU law, in particular Article 9(2) of Directive 97/67/EC, as supplemented and amended by Directive 2008/6/EC, precludes the application of national provisions, in particular Articles 6 and 10 of Legislative Decree No 261/1999, and Articles 11(1)(f) and 15(2) of the ‘Regulation governing qualifying certificates for the provision of postal services to the public’, referred to in Annex A to Resolution AGCOM 129/15/CONS of 23 March 2015, and Article 9 of the related ‘Rules governing the procedure for the issue of qualifying certificates for the provision of postal services to the public’, referred to in the Decree of the Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico of 29 July 2015, in so far as they do not contain any assessment as to those cases in which the contribution to the compensation fund in respect of universal service costs can be described as appropriate, and do not lay down conditions for application which differ according both to the subjective circumstances of the contributors and to the markets?

      (1)  Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service (OJ 1998 L 15, p. 14).

      (2)  Directive 2008/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008 amending Directive 97/67/EC with regard to the full accomplishment of the internal market of Community postal services (OJ 2008 L 52, p. 3).


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 November 2003 in Case T-248/02: Carla Faita v Economic and Social Committee of the European Communities (Officials — Vacancies — Article 29(1) of the Staff Regulations — Appointments procedure — Manifest error of assessment — Statement of reasons)

text:
24.1.2004              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 21/33
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               against Economic and Social Committee of the European
                                                                          Communities (Agents: M. Bermejo Garde and D. Waelbroeck)
                     of 26 November 2003                                  — application for annulment of the decisions of the Bureau
                                                                          of the Economic and Social Committee of the European
                                                                          Communities of 20 September 2001 rejecting the applicant’s
in Case T-222/02: HERON Robotunits GmbH v Office for                      candidature for the post of head of the Italian Translation
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                     and Transcription Division of the Logistics and Translation
                       Designs) (OHIM) (1)                                Directorate and the decision of 16 October 2001 appointing
                                                                          another candidate to the post — the Court of First Instance
(Community trade mark — Word mark ROBOTUNITS —                            (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. García-Valdecasas, President,
Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation              and P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio González,
           (EC) No 40/94 — Descriptive character)                         Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on
                                                                          11 November 2003, in which it:
                          (2004/C 21/69)
                                                                          1.    dismisses the application.
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                          2.    orders the parties to bear their own costs.
In Case T-222/02, HERON Robotunits GmbH, established
                                                                          (1) OJ C 247 of 12.10.2002.
in Lustenau (Austria), represented by M. Bergermann and
R. Hackbarth, lawyers, v Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents:
S. Bonne and G. Schneider): Action against the decision of the
First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 May 2002
(Case R 1095/2000-1) refusing to register the word mark
ROBOTUNITS as a Community trade mark, the Court of First
Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili, President,                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 26 November 2003, in                                         of 25 November 2003
which it:
                                                                          in Case T-286/02: Oriental Kitchen SARL v Office for
1.    Dismisses the action;                                               Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                                Designs) (OHIM) (1)
2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                                                                          (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings —
(1) OJ C 233 of 28.9.2002.                                                Application for the Community word mark KIAP MOU —
                                                                            Earlier national word marks MOU — Refusal to register)
                                                                                (2004/C 21/71)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                     of 11 November 2003                                                      (Language of the case: French)
in Case T-248/02: Carla Faita v Economic and Social
        Committee of the European Communities (1)
                                                                          In Case T-286/02, Oriental Kitchen SARL, established in
                                                                          Choisy-le-Roi (France), represented by J.-J. Sebag, lawyer, v
(Officials — Vacancies — Article 29(1) of the Staff Regu-                 Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
lations — Appointments procedure — Manifest error of                      and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: B. Lory, O. Waelbroeck and
             assessment — Statement of reasons)                           O. Montalto), the intervener before the Court being Mou
                                                                          Dybfrost A/S, established in Esbjerg N (Denmark), represented
                          (2004/C 21/70)                                  by T. Steffensen, lawyer: Action against the decision of the
                                                                          Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the
                   (Language of the case: French)                         Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 June 2002
                                                                          (Case R 114/2001-4) in respect of the opposition of the
                                                                          proprietor of the national trade marks MOU to registration of
                                                                          the sign KIAP MOU as a Community trade mark, the Court of
In Case T-248/02: Carla Faita, official of the Economic and               First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: N. J. Forwood,
Social Committee of the European Communities, residing in                 President, J. Pirrung and A. W. H. Meij, Judges; D. Christensen,
Brussels, represented by A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal and           Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
S. Orlandi, with an address for service in Luxembourg,                    25 November 2003, in which it:


title: Case C-173/08: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 June 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam (Netherlands)) — Kloosterboer Services BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane Rotterdam (Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Cooling systems for computers composed of a heat sink and a fan — Classification in the Combined Nomenclature)

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/19

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 June 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam (Netherlands)) — Kloosterboer Services BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane Rotterdam
   (Case C-173/08) (1)

   (Common Customs Tariff - Tariff headings - Cooling systems for computers composed of a heat sink and a fan - Classification in the Combined Nomenclature)
   2009/C 180/31
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Gerechtshof te Amsterdam

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Kloosterboer Services BV

      Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane Rotterdam, kantoor Laan op Zuid

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Gerechtshof te Amsterdam — Interpretation of Commission Regulation (EC) No 384/2004 of 1 March 2004 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2004 L 64, p. 21) — Classification of cooling systems for computers composed of a ‘heat sink’ and a fan

      Operative part of the judgment

   Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1789/2003 of 11 September 2003, must be interpreted as meaning that goods, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, made up of a heat sink and a fan and which are solely intended to be incorporated in a computer must be classified under subheading 8473 30 90 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to that regulation.

      (1)  OJ C 183, 19.7.2008.


title: Case T-544/15: Action brought on 21 September 2015 — Terna v Commission

text:
               3.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 363/43

         Action brought on 21 September 2015 — Terna v Commission
   (Case T-544/15)
   (2015/C 363/53)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Terna — Rete elettrica nazionale SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: A. Police, L. Di Via, F. Covone and D. Carria, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the European Commission — Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport (Directorate General for Energy — SRD.3 — Financial management) Reference No Move.srd.3.dir(2015)2669621 of 6 July 2015, in so far as that decision does not allow reimbursement of the costs incurred by Terna in connection with project Nos 2009-E255/09-ENER/09-TEN-E-SI2.564583 and 2007-E221/07/2007-TREN/07TEN-E-S07.91403, and imposes an obligation to repay sums granted in connection with those projects in the amounts set out in the table annexed to the contested measure;

               —

               in the alternative, annul the decision of the European Commission — Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport (Directorate General for Energy) — SRD.3 — Financial management Reference No Move.srd.3.dir(2015)2669621 of 6 July 2015, in so far as that decision does not provide for a reduction in the reimbursement of the costs incurred by Terna in connection with project Nos 2009-E255/09-ENER/09-TEN-E-SI2.564583 and 2007-E221/07/2007-TREN/07TEN-E-S07.91403 commensurate with the profits made by CESI S.p.A.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present action is brought against the measure adopted by the European Commission — Directorate General for Mobility and Transport (Directorate-General for Energy — SRD.3 — Financial management) Reference No Move.srd.3.dir(2015)2669621 of 6 July 2015, received by Terna S.p.A. on 21 July 2015 (prot. No 0011151), in so far as that decision precludes the application of Article 4(3) of Directive 2004/17/EC in relation to payments made in connection with project Nos 2009-E255/09-ENER/09-TEN-E-SI2.564583 and 2007-E221/07/2007-TREN/07TEN-E-S07.91403 and imposes an obligation to repay sums granted in connection with those projects in the amounts set out in the table annexed to the contested measure, and against any preliminary or in any way connected act, with particular reference, in so far as necessary, to the note of the European Commission — Directorate-General for Energy (Directorate B — Security of supply, Energy markets and Networks, B.1. — Energy policy, Security of supply and Networks) Reference No ENER.B1(2014)509729 of 18 June 2014, as well as Audit Report No B22-09 of 1 February 2013, in so far it is claimed that the costs incurred by Terna S.p.A in connection with the services provided by CESI S.p.A. in relation to those projects are not eligible for reimbursement.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, relating to the admissibility of the action.

                           —

                           It is submitted in this regard that the contested measure was adopted in respect of the applicant, since it is of direct and individual concern to the applicant, and, while it does not have a specific implementing provision, that measure must be regarded as definitive and not subject to further review by the defendant.

               2.

               Second plea in law, relating to the substance of the applicant’s claims, the misapplication of Articles 14 and 37 of Directive 2004/17 in connection with the subcontracting of services, the failure to conduct inquiries and absence of adequate reasons in the contested measure, the misapplication of Article III.7, paragraphs 1, 4 and 6 of Annex III to Decision D/207630 of 2008 and misapplication of Article III.7, paragraphs 1, 4 and 6 of Annex III to Decision D/7181 of 2010 and the consequent unjustifiable reduction in reimbursement for projects on the ground of an alleged failure on the part of Terna properly to apply formal procurement procedures.

                           —

                           It is submitted in this regard, in particular, that the inclusion of a provision permitting subcontracting in the framework agreements concluded between Terna and CESI at the conclusion of a negotiated procedure not preceded by the publication of a contract notice cannot be said to be contrary to Directive 2004/17 and nor can it be relied on, as claimed, as being indicative of the fact that there are no technical reasons justifying the contract being executed by a particular operator.

                           —

                           The contested measure is also vitiated on other grounds, relating to the incorrect classification of the relationship between the framework agreement and individual contracts granted by Terna so CESI.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging misapplication of Article 40(3)(c) of Directive 2004/17 on the basis that the Commission found that there were no technical reasons justifying the award of contracts to a particular operator without prior publication of a contract notice, failure to conduct inquiries and failure to give adequate reasons in the decision rejecting the claim for reimbursement.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging misapplication of Directive 2004/17 and failure to have regard to Terna’s legitimate expectations on the ground that the claims for reimbursement relating to the contracts forming part of the framework agreement were disallowed as ineligible, notwithstanding the publication of the contract award notice in the Official Journal of the European Union and the irrelevance of some of the amounts for the purposes of European procedures.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, put forward in the alternative, alleging breach of the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, on account of the Commission’s decision to disallow the claims for reimbursement in their entirety, rather than reducing them on a proportionate basis.


15.6.2002             EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 144/31
       Removal from the register of Case C-407/00 (1)             from the register of Case C-462/00: Commission of the
                                                                  European Communities v Republic of Austria.
                       (2002/C 144/59)
                                                                  (1) OJ C 45 of 10.2.2001.
By order of 20 March 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-407/00: Commission of the
European Communities v Republic of Austria.
                                                                         Removal from the register of Case C-235/01 (1)
(1) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.
                                                                                (2002/C 144/63)
                                                                  By order of 9 January 2002 the President of the Court of
                                                                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                  from the register of Case C-235/01: Commission of the
       Removal from the register of Case C-408/00 (1)             European Communities v Italian Republic.
                       (2002/C 144/60)                            (1) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.
By order of 22 February 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-408/00: Commission of the
European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.                      Removal from the register of Case C-242/01 (1)
(1) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.                                                                (2002/C 144/64)
                                                                  By order of 7 February 2002 the President of the Court of
                                                                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                  from the register of Case C-242/01: Commission of the
                                                                  European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg.
       Removal from the register of Case C-461/00 (1)
                                                                  (1) OJ C 212 of 28.7.2001.
                       (2002/C 144/61)
By order of 1st March 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-461/00: Commission of the
European Communities v Republic of Austria.                       Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-269/01 and
                                                                                C-270/01 (1)
(1) OJ C 45 of 10.2.2001.                                                                (2002/C 144/65)
                                                                  By order of 22 March 2002 the President of the Court of
                                                                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                  from the register of Joined Cases C-269/01 and C-270/01
                                                                  (Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Civile e
       Removal from the register of Case C-462/00 (1)
                                                                  Penale di L’Aquila): Flora Panepucci v Rina Iannarelli (Case
                                                                  C-269/01) and Attilio Maria Cecchini v Mario Basile (Case
                       (2002/C 144/62)                            C-270/01).
                                                                  (1) OJ C 275 of 29.9.2001.
By order of 1st March 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal


title: Case T-293/17: Action brought on 16 May 2017 — Fakro v Commission

text:
               31.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/29

         Action brought on 16 May 2017 — Fakro v Commission
   (Case T-293/17)
   (2017/C 249/45)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Fakro sp z o.o. (Nowy Sącz, Poland) (represented by: A. Radkowiak-Macuda, legal adviser)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               find that the Commission has failed to fulfil its obligations under the TFEU and the Charter of Fundamental Rights by failing to take a position on the complaint brought before it by the applicant on 12 July 2012 concerning abuse of a dominant position by the VELUX group, notwithstanding the fact that it was formally called on to do so;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs, even in the event that the case does not proceed to judgment in view of the adoption by the Commission of a decision during the judicial proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 288 TFEU, read in conjunction with Articles 102 TFEU and 105 TFEU and with Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
   The adoption, after three and a half years, of an initial, allegedly factual position in the procedure regarding the complaint lodged by the applicant does not constitute dealing with the case within a reasonable time. The Commission has not produced any evidence making it possible to determine that any action whatsoever was undertaken during the investigation procedure. Before adopting a decision, the Commission is required to carry out a thorough analysis of the matters of fact and of law put forward by the complainant. The proceedings initiated by the applicant constitute the only way in which it can safeguard its rights.


title: Case C-398/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Helsingin Hallinto-oikeus by order of that Court of 22 September 2003 in the case brought by E. Gavrielides Oy

text:
C 275/34                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          15.11.2003
(v) in any event, order that the Commission bear its own                   (5) the CFI distorts the evidence by finding that the Com-
      costs and pay ADM’s costs relating to the proceedings                      mission has proven actual economic impact as the
      before the CFI and the ECJ.                                                evidence in question does not analyse price levels absent
                                                                                collusion and therefore cannot show that prices were
                                                                                higher than they otherwise would have been;
                                                                           (6) the CFI infringes the principle that the Commission must
                                                                                follow self-imposed rules by permitting the Commission
                                                                                to infringe the Guidelines;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           (7) the CFI infringes the principle of proportionality, as
                                                                                interpreted by the ECJ and CFI, which requires that fines
The grounds relied upon by the Appellants are as follows:                        bear some relationship to relevant turnover.
(1) the CFI infringes the principle of non-retroactivity by                (1) OJ C 316, 4.11.2002, p. 32.
      upholding the Commission’s retroactive application of                (2) 2001/418/EC: Commission Decision of 7 June 2000 relating to a
      the Guidelines on Fines;                                                 proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53
                                                                               of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/36.545/F3 Amino Acids)
                                                                               (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ L 152, 7.6.2001, p. 24).
(2) the CFI infringes the principle of equality:
      (a)   by upholding the Commission’s discrimination as
            to the method of calculation of fines applied to
            contemporaneous competition law infringements
            depending on whether the Commission adopts its
            decision before or after publication of the Guide-
            lines;
                                                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Helsingin
      (b)   by upholding an equal starting point for the fine on           Hallinto-oikeus by order of that Court of 22 September
            ADM and Ajinomoto, notwithstanding Ajinomoto’s                        2003 in the case brought by E. Gavrielides Oy
            market share in the EEA is almost twice the size of
            ADM’s;
                                                                                (Case C-398/03)
(3) the CFI infringes the principle of ne bis in idem by holding
      that the Commission is not required to set off or take
                                                                                (2003/C 275/51)
      into account fines paid by ADM to other authorities in
      respect of the same actions;
(4) the CFI infringes the duty to state reasons:
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities by order of the Helsingin Hallinto-
                                                                           oikeus (Helsinki Administrative Court) of 22 September 2003,
      (a)   in finding that the Commission is not required to              received at the Court Registry on 24 September 2003, for a
            take account of fines paid by ADM in third countries           preliminary ruling in the case brought by E. Gavrielides Oy on
            notwithstanding that the Commission’s fine is based,           the following questions:
            inter alia, on ADM’s global turnover and therefore
            penalises ADM on the basis of its sales in countries
            where ADM has already been fined;
                                                                           Is Article 1(1) of Council Directive 90/642/EEC of 27 Novem-
                                                                           ber 1990 (1) on the fixing of maximum levels for pesticide
      (b)   in finding that the fine is reasonable notwithstanding         residues in and on certain products of plant origin, including
            the Commission’s failure to take into account ADM’s            fruit and vegetables, as subsequently amended, to be interpret-
            EEA lysine sales;                                              ed as meaning that the directive applies to leaves of the vine?
 ---pagebreak--- 15.11.2003             EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 275/35
If the directive applies,                                                       measures. Thus it is for the Commission, as a general
                                                                                rule, to monitor State aid. Certainly, the Council has a
                                                                                decision-making power in the matter but it is an excep-
is Annex I to the directive to be interpreted as meaning that                   tional power which must be strictly interpreted.
leaves of the vine are classified in the product group Leaf
vegetables and fresh herbs and Annex II as meaning that leaves
of the vine are classified under the point Herbs, Others?
                                                                          —     Misuse of powers and procedure: The power conferred
                                                                                on the Council exceptionally to authorise State aid instead
In which product group and point are leaves of the vine to be                   of the Commission and, where proceedings are initiated,
classified if they are not to be classified under the point Herbs,              subject to closely defined time-limits, was used in order
Others?                                                                         to neutralise the Commission’s Decision of 17 February
                                                                                2003, that is to say to annul its effects, by authorising aid
                                                                                identical to the aid declared incompatible. The contested
(1) OJ L 350 of 14.12.1990, p. 71.
                                                                                decision is also vitiated by a misuse of powers because it
                                                                                was adopted in order to produce the same effects as an
                                                                                annulment judgment by the Court of Justice.
                                                                          —     Infringement of the Treaty and of the general principles
Action brought on 25 September 2003 by the Com-                                 of Community law. The contested decision not only
mission of the European Communities against the Council                         was adopted in breach of the third subparagraph of
                     of the European Union                                      Article 88(2) EC but also disturbs the institutional
                                                                                equilibrium established by the Treaty as between the
                                                                                Commission and the Council. That equilibrium entails
                          (Case C-399/03)                                       observance by the other institutions, in particular the
                                                                                Council, of the Commission’s sphere of competence. That
                         (2003/C 275/52)                                        means that, except in the case of an express derogatory
                                                                                power, the Council may not impinge on the Com-
                                                                                mission’s sphere of competence. However, in the present
                                                                                case, the Council acted ultra vires. The procedure at issue
An action against the Council of the European Union was                         also disturbs the equilibrium between the ‘executive’
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-                    institutions and the Community judicature and, in general
ties on 25 September 2003 by the Commission of the                              terms, jeopardises the adjudication system established by
European Communities, represented by G. Rozet and V. di                         the Treaty. Finally, the Council Decision infringes the
Bucci, acting as Agents, with an address for service in                         substantive law in the matter of State aid and Council
Luxembourg.                                                                     Directive 69/335/EEC, as well as the obligation in that
                                                                                regard to provide a statement of reasons.
The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:
                                                                          —     In the alternative, manifest error of assessment and
1)    annul Council Decision 2003/531/EC of 16 July 2003 (1),                   misuse of powers as to the existence of exceptional
                                                                                circumstances. The Council manifestly erred in its assess-
2)    order the defendant to pay the costs.                                     ment in particular by deeming exceptional circumstances
                                                                                to exist owing to the fact that Belgium did not have the
                                                                                time necessary to put in place measures different from
                                                                                those declared incompatible with the common market by
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 the Commission Decision of 17 February 2003 in favour
                                                                                of coordination centres established in its territory.
The Council Decision of 16 July 2003 authorised the granting
of aid identical to aid declared incompatible by the Com-
mission’s final negative decision of 17 February 2003. An
individual Council Decision on State aid is in principle                  (1) Council Decision 2003/531/EC of 16 July 2003 on the granting
extraneous to the monitoring system established by the Treaty                 of aid by the Belgian Government to certain coordination centres
and must be confined to exceptional situations.                               in Belgium (OJ 2003 L 184, p. 17).
The Council Decision is vitiated in several regards:
—     Lack of competence of the Council: Only a body indepen-
      dent of the States providing aid is in a position to
      examine objectively and impartially the different national


title: Case T-368/12 P: Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2014  — Commission v Macchia (Appeal — Civil service — Temporary staff — Fixed-term contract — Decision of non-renewal — Jurisdiction of the Civil Service Tribunal — First paragraph of Article 8 of the CEOS — Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials — Concept of ‘interests of the service’  — Prohibition on ruling ultra petita — Principle of the right to be heard)

text:
               7.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2014 — Commission v Macchia
   (Case T-368/12 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil service - Temporary staff - Fixed-term contract - Decision of non-renewal - Jurisdiction of the Civil Service Tribunal - First paragraph of Article 8 of the CEOS - Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials - Concept of ‘interests of the service’ - Prohibition on ruling ultra petita - Principle of the right to be heard))
   2014/C 212/32
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Luigi Macchia (Varese, Italy) (represented by: S. Rodrigues, A. Blot and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 13 June 2012 in Case F-63/11 Macchia v Commission, not yet published in the ECR, and seeking that that judgment be set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 13 June 2012 in Case F-63/11 Macchia v Commission, in so far as it annulled the decision of the Director General of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) of 12 August 2010 rejecting the request for an extension of Luigi Macchia’s contract as a member of the temporary staff and, consequently, rejected as premature the request for Mr Macchia to be reintegrated within OLAF and the application for compensation in respect of the material harm suffered;

               2.

               Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;

               3.

               Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;

               4.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 311, 13.10.2012.


title: Action brought on 27 June 1997 by Dr Seufert GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-192/97)

text:
18 . 10 . 97            EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 318/ 19
have been remitted in accordance with the principle                       Instance of the European Communities on 27 June 1997
of the protection of legitimate expectations, laid down                   by Dr Seufert GmbH, whose registered office is at
in particular in Article 5 ( 2 ) of Regulation ( EEC )                    Karlsruhe, represented by Dietrich Ehle, Rechtsanwalt,
No 1697/97.                                                               Cologne, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                          the Chambers of Marc Lucius, 6 rue Michel Welter,
(') See previous cases.                                                   Luxembourg.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          — annul Commission Decision REM 21 /96 of 25 March
Action brought on 27 June 1997 by Horten AG against                            1997, refusing the remission of a payment of
                                                                               DM 126 828,26 ,
        the Commission of the European Communities
                          ( Case T-191/97)
                                                                          — order the Commission to pay the costs.
                             ( 97IC 318/37)
                (Language of the case: German)                            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
An action against the Commission of the European                          The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the
Communities was brought before the Court of First                         applicant, whose predecessor imported colour television
Instance of the European Communities on 27 June 1997                      sets from Turkey in 1992 and 1993 , and which challenges
by Horten AG, whose registered office is at Diisseldorf,                  a Commission Decision addressed to Germany to the
represented by Dietrich Ehle, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne, with                 effect that the remission of import duties in its case would
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                   be unjustified, are similar to those in Cases T- 186/97 and
Marc Lucius, 6 rue Michel Welter, Luxembourg.                             T-l 87/97 ( M.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               (') See p. 17 and 18 of this Official Journal .
— annul        Commission          Decision    REM       14/96   of
     19 February 1997, refusing the remission of a payment
     of DM 123 809,12,
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                  Action brought on 4 July 1997 by Bo Forvass against the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-203/97)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                ( 97/C 318/39 )
The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the
applicant, which imported television sets from Turkey                                     (Language of the case: French)
between October 1992 and January 1993 and challenges a
Commission Decision addressed to Germany to the effect
that the remission of import duties in its case would be                  An action against the Commission of the European
unjustified, are similar to those in Cases T- 186/97 and                  Communities was brought before the Court of First
T-187/97 (').                                                             Instance of the European Communities on 4 July 1997 by
                                                                          Bo Forvass, residing in Brussels, represented by Nicolas
                                                                          Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
(') See p. 17 and 18 of this Official Journal.
                                                                          Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson sari, 30
                                                                          rue de Cessange .
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
Action brought on 27 June 1997 by Dr Seufert GmbH                        — rule that the applicant is entitled to be classified in
   against the Commission of the European Communities                          grade A 4, step 4, with effect from the date of his
                         ( Case T-192/97)                                      entry into service, namely 1 February 1996,
                            ( 97/C 318/38 )
                                                                         — consequently, annul the Commission's decision of
                (Language of the case: German)                                 19 March 1997 expressly rejecting the applicant's
                                                                               complaint,
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                        — order the defendant to pay all the costs.


title: Case F-75/07: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 27 September 2011 — Brown and Volpato v Commission (Staff Cases — Officials — Promotion — 2006 promotion year — New career structures — Extension of careers by the introduction of new grades having no equivalent in the old Staff Regulations — Application of Article 45 and Annex XIII of the Staff Regulations, as well as the general implementing provisions applicable from 2005 — Principle of equal treatment — Retroactive effect of promotion decisions to a date prior to 1 May 2004 — Transitional measures — Action which must manifestly be dismissed)

text:
               19.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 340/39

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 27 September 2011 — Brown and Volpato v Commission
   (Case F-75/07) (1)

   (Staff Cases - Officials - Promotion - 2006 promotion year - New career structures - Extension of careers by the introduction of new grades having no equivalent in the old Staff Regulations - Application of Article 45 and Annex XIII of the Staff Regulations, as well as the general implementing provisions applicable from 2005 - Principle of equal treatment - Retroactive effect of promotion decisions to a date prior to 1 May 2004 - Transitional measures - Action which must manifestly be dismissed)
   2011/C 340/80
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Colin Brown (Brussels, Belgium) and Alberto Volpato (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: B. Cortese and C. Cortese, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and G. Berscheid, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by M. Arpio Santacruz and I. Šulce, later by: M. Bauer, J. Monteiro and K. Zieleśkiewicz, Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of the Commission decision published in Administrative Notices No 55 2006 of 17 November 2006 inasmuch as it provided for the promotion of the applicants to grade A*9, and not to grade A*10, in the 2006 promotion year.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Brown and Mr Volpato, and the European Commission, are ordered to bear their own costs.

               3.

               The Council of the European Union, which intervened, is ordered to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 235 of 6.10.07, p. 30.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf by order of that court of 14 September 1998 in the case of Peacock AG against Hauptzollamt Paderborn (Case C-339/98)

text:
C 358/6               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     21.11.98
C. Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet and R.                         Circondariale, Pinerolo (District Magistrate's Court,
Schintgen, Presidents of Chambers, G. F. Mancini, J. C.              Pinerolo), of 3 September 1998, received at the Court on
Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray,                 21 September 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann, L.            Renato Collino and Luisella Chiappero against Telecom
Sevón (Rapporteur) and K. M. Ioannou, Judges; J.                     Italia SpA on the following questions:
Mischo, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made
an order on 23 September 1998, the operative part of
which is as follows:                                                 (A)    Does Article 1 of Directive 77/187/EEC (1) apply to
                                                                            the transfer for value, authorised by law
                                                                            promulgated by the State and implemented by
Consideration of the question referred has not disclosed                    ministerial decree, of an undertaking managed by a
any factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of                      public entity which is a direct emanation of the
Article 5 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 3477/93 of                       State to a private company formed by another
17 December 1993 concerning the agricultural conversion                     public entity which holds all its shares, where the
rates to be applied in the tobacco sector.                                  activity transferred is assigned to the private
                                                                            company under the administrative licence system?
(1) OJ C 354, 23.11.1996.
                                                                     and if so
                                                                     (B1) Does Article 3(1) of Directive 77/187/EEC require it
                                                                            to be held that the continuation of the employment
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht                     relationship with the transferor is mandatory, with
Düsseldorf by order of that court of 14 September 1998 in                   the result that the worker's length of service
  the case of Peacock AG against Hauptzollamt Paderborn                     continues to be computed as from the date on which
                                                                            he was taken on by the transferor and he continues
                       (Case C-339/98)
                                                                            to be entitled to payment of a lump sum by way of
                         (98/C 358/12)                                      severance pay which treats as a single unit the time
                                                                            spent by him in the transferor and transferee's
                                                                            employment?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht
Düsseldorf (Finance Court, Düsseldorf) of 14 September               (B2) On a proper construction of Article 3(1), do the
1998, received at the Court Registry on 17 September                        worker's rights' transferred to the transferee in any
1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Peacock AG                    event include the advantages acquired by him while
against Hauptzollamt Paderborn on the following                             employed by the transferor, such as length of service
question:                                                                   if, under the system of collective bargaining
                                                                            applicable in the transferee's business, length of
                                                                            service entails the acquisition of rights of a financial
Is Note 5B to Chapter 84 of the combined nomenclature                       nature?
in the version which was in force from 1990 to 1995 to be
interpreted as meaning that the transmission of data using
                                                                     (1) OJ L 61, 5.3.1977, p. 26.
the network cards (1) described in more detail in the
grounds of this order is not to be regarded as a specific
function but as data processing, so that the network cards
are to be classified under heading 8473?
(1) In particular Microdyne Corporation's NE2000 and NE5500
    Ethernet Network Adapter Cards.                                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal da
                                                                     Comarca SetuÂbal, Third Civil Chamber, by order of that
                                                                     court of 15 July 1998 in the case of Vitor Manuel Mendes
                                                                     Ferreira and Maria Clara Delgado Correia Ferreira, his
                                                                     spouse, against Companhia de Seguros Mundial ConfiancËa
                                                                                S.A.
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura                                          (Case C-348/98)
Circondariale, Pinerolo (Italy), by order of that court of
3 September 1998 in the case of Renato Collino and                                            (98/C 358/14)
        Luisella Chiappero against Telecom Italia SpA
                       (Case C-343/98)
                                                                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                         (98/C 358/13)                               European Communities by order of the Tribunal da
                                                                     Comarca (District Court), SetuÂbal, Third Civil Chamber,
                                                                     of 15 July 1998, received at the Court Registry on
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of                   24 September 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
the European Communities by order of the Pretura                     Vitor Manuel Mendes Ferreira and Maria Clara Delgado


title: Case C-90/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Miranda de Ebro (Spain) lodged on 24 February 2014  — Banco Grupo Cajatres, S.A. v D. Miguel Ángel Viana Gordejuela

text:
               19.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Miranda de Ebro (Spain) lodged on 24 February 2014 — Banco Grupo Cajatres, S.A. v D. Miguel Ángel Viana Gordejuela
   (Case C-90/14)
   2014/C 151/15
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Miranda de Ebro

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Banco Grupo Cajatres, S.A.

      Defendants: María Mercedes Manjón Pinilla and joint heirs of D. Miguel Ángel Viana Gordejuela

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) preclude a provision, such as the Second Transitional Provision of Law No 1/2013 of 14 May, which provides at all events for a reduction of the default interest rate, regardless of whether the term concerning default interest was originally void because it was unfair?

               2.

               Do Articles 3(1), 4(1), 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive 93/13 preclude a provision of national law, such as Article 114 of the Law on Mortgages, which allows the national court, when assessing the unfairness of a term fixing default interest, to examine only whether the agreed interest rate exceeds 3 times the statutory interest rate and no other circumstances?

               3.

               Do Articles 3(1), 4(1), 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive 93/13 preclude a provision of national law, such as Article 693 LEC, which allows a claim to be made for accelerated repayment of the total amount of the loan on the grounds of failure to pay three monthly instalments, without taking into account other factors such as the duration or amount of the loan or any other relevant matters and which also makes the possibility of avoiding the effects of such accelerated repayment dependent on the will of the creditor except in cases in which the mortgage is secured on the mortgagor’s permanent residence?

      (1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts; OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.


title: Case T-375/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 October 2008 — Le Canne v Commission (Agriculture — Community financial assistance — Financial irregularity vitiating the request for payment of the balance — Decision to reduce the assistance — Expiry of the limitation period — Action for annulment and damages)

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/28

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 October 2008 — Le Canne v Commission
   (Case T-375/05) (1)

   (Agriculture - Community financial assistance - Financial irregularity vitiating the request for payment of the balance - Decision to reduce the assistance - Expiry of the limitation period - Action for annulment and damages)
   (2008/C 313/48)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Azienda Agricola ‘Le Canne’ Srl (Rovigo, Italy) (represented by: G. Carraro and F. Mazzonetto, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Cattabriga and L. Visaggio, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)
   Re:
   Application to annul Decision C(2005) 2939 of 26 July 2005 reducing the outstanding balance of Community financial assistance granted to the application for the modernisation and renovation of its fish farm facilities and an application for compensation for harm arising from that reduction.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision C(2005) 2939 of 26 July 2005 in so far as it reduces the Community financial assistance granted to Azienda Agricola ‘Le Canne’ Srl for project IT/0016/90/02 on account of the imputation to the eligible expenditure to that assistance of the profit made by Giradello SpA for the performance of works related to that project.;

               2.

               Dismisses the action for damages

               3.

               Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 296, 26.11.2005.


title: Case C-238/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Münster (Germany) lodged on 26 April 2016 — X v Finanzamt I

text:
               19.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/18

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Münster (Germany) lodged on 26 April 2016 — X v Finanzamt I
   (Case C-238/16)
   (2016/C 343/29)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Münster

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: X

      Defendant: Finanzamt I

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 132(1)(d) of the VAT Directive (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the supply of human blood also encompasses the supply of blood plasma obtained from human blood?

               2.

               If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: does this also apply with regard to blood plasma that is not intended to be used directly for therapeutic purposes, but exclusively for the manufacture of pharmaceutical products?

               3.

               If Question 2 is answered in the negative: is classification as blood dependent solely on the intended purpose of the blood plasma, or also on the uses to which the blood plasma may theoretically be put?

               4.

               If the answers to Questions 1 and 2 are in the affirmative: does a transaction, which is exempt from VAT within a Member State under Article 132(1)(d) of the VAT Directive, irrespective of the rules on VAT applicable in a third country, lead to the exclusion of the entitlement to deduct input tax under Article 168 of the VAT Directive, even if that transaction constitutes a supply of goods to a third country for which the deduction applies under Article 169(b) of the VAT Directive, read in conjunction with Article 146(1) thereof?

      (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).


title: Case F-36/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 29 June 2010 — Armitage-Wilson v European Police Office (Europol) (Staff case — Europol employees — Non-renewal of a contract — Contract of indefinite duration — Article 6 of the Staff Regulations applicable to Europol employees — Principle of respect for the rights of the defence)

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/69

      Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 29 June 2010 — Armitage-Wilson v European Police Office (Europol)
      (Case F-36/09) (1)

      (Staff case - Europol employees - Non-renewal of a contract - Contract of indefinite duration - Article 6 of the Staff Regulations applicable to Europol employees - Principle of respect for the rights of the defence)
      (2010/C 288/128)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Parties

         Applicant: Kate Armitage-Wilson (The Hague, Netherlands) (represented by W. J. Dammingh, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Police Office (Europol) (represented by- D. Neumann and D. El Khoury, agents, and by B. Wägenbaur and R. Van der Hout, lawyers)

         Re:

      Annulment of the decision of 12 June 2008 informing the applicant that it was impossible to offer her a permanent post, and the decision of 7 January 2009 rejecting the complaint brought against the first decision.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Tribunal:

                  1.

                  annuls the decision of 12 June 2008 by which the European Police Office (Europol) refused to offer to Ms Armitage-Wilson a contract of indefinite duration;

                  2.

                  orders Europol to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 167, of 18.07.09., p 26