title: Joined Cases C-566/11, C-567/11, C-580/11, C-591/11, C-620/11 and C-640/11: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 October 2013 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Iberdrola SA, Gas Natural SDG SA (C-566/11), Gas Natural SDG SA (C-567/11), Tarragona Power SL (C-580/11), Gas Natural SDG SA, Bizcaia Energía SL (C-591/11), Bahía de Bizcaia Electricidad SL (C-620/11), E.ON Generación SL and Others (C-640/11) (Request for a preliminary ruling — Protection of the ozone layer — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community — Method of allocating allowances — Allocation of allowances free of charge)

text:
               14.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 367/4

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 October 2013 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Iberdrola SA, Gas Natural SDG SA (C-566/11), Gas Natural SDG SA (C-567/11), Tarragona Power SL (C-580/11), Gas Natural SDG SA, Bizcaia Energía SL (C-591/11), Bahía de Bizcaia Electricidad SL (C-620/11), E.ON Generación SL and Others (C-640/11)
   (Joined Cases C-566/11, C-567/11, C-580/11, C-591/11, C-620/11 and C-640/11) (1)

   (Request for a preliminary ruling - Protection of the ozone layer - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community - Method of allocating allowances - Allocation of allowances free of charge)
   2013/C 367/06
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Iberdrola SA, Gas Natural SDG SA,

      Intervening parties: Administración del Estado and Others (C-566/11),

      Applicant: Gas Natural SDG SA,

      Intervening parties: Endesa SA and Others (C-567/11),

      Applicant: Tarragona Power SL,

      Intervening parties: Gas Natural SDG SA and Others (C-580/11),

      Applicants: Gas Natural SDG SA, Bizcaia Energía SL,

      Intervening parties: Administración del Estado and Others (C-591/11),

      Applicant: Bahía de Bizcaia Electricidad SL,

      Intervening parties: Gas Natural SDG SA and Others (C-620/11),

      Applicant: E.ON Generación SL and Others (C-640/11)

      Re:

   Requests for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Supremo — Interpretation of Article 10 of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32) — Protection of the ozone layer — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community — Method of allocating allowances — Allocation of allowances free of charge

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 10 of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC must be interpreted as not precluding application of national legislative measures, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the purpose and effect of which are to reduce remuneration for electricity production by an amount equal to the increase in such remuneration brought about through the incorporation, in the selling prices offered on the wholesale electricity market, of the value of the emission allowances allocated free of charge.

      (1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012

      OJ C 39, 11.2.2012.


title: Case T-70/17: Action brought on 31 January 2017 — TenneT Holding v. EUIPO — Ngrid Intellectual Property (NorthSeaGrid)

text:
               3.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/59

         Action brought on 31 January 2017 — TenneT Holding v. EUIPO — Ngrid Intellectual Property (NorthSeaGrid)
   (Case T-70/17)
   (2017/C 104/82)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: TenneT Holding BV (Arnhem, Netherlands) (represented by: K. Limperg, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ngrid Intellectual Property Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘NorthSeaGrid’ — Application for registration No 12 223 517

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 November 2016 in Case R 1607/2015-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-478/14: Action brought on 26 June 2014  — Industrias Espadafor and Others v Commission

text:
               11.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/50

         Action brought on 26 June 2014 — Industrias Espadafor and Others v Commission
   (Case T-478/14)
   2014/C 261/79
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Industrias Espadafor, SA (Granada, Spain); Tutichip, SAU (Barcelona, Spain); Locales, Actividades y Exclusivas Comerciales, SA (Vigo, Spain); RNB, SL (La Pobla de Vallbona, Spain); and Inversiones Antaviana, SA (Valencia, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero, and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to that decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as the beneficiaries of the alleged aid and as the sole addressees of the order for recovery;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid;

               —

               annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of private contracts between the investors and other entities; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-700/13 Bankia v Commission.


title: Case C-460/05: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 July 2007 — Republic of Poland v European Parliament and Council of the European Union (Directive 2005/36/EC — Recognition of professional qualifications — Nurses responsible for general care — Midwives — Specific provisions applicable to Polish qualifications — Validity — Duty to give reasons — Introduced by Act of Accession)

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/6

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 July 2007 — Republic of Poland v European Parliament and Council of the European Union
   (Case C-460/05) (1)

   (Directive 2005/36/EC - Recognition of professional qualifications - Nurses responsible for general care - Midwives - Specific provisions applicable to Polish qualifications - Validity - Duty to give reasons - Introduced by Act of Accession)
   (2007/C 211/09)
   Language of the case: Polish
   Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: J. Pietras, M. Szpunar and M. Brzezińska, Agents)

      Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: U. Rösslein and A. Padowska, acting as Agents) and Council of the European Union (represented by: M.C. Giorgi Fort, R. Szostak and F. Florindo Gijón, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the form of order sought by the defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Stølvbæk and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of Articles 33(2) and 43(3) of Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22) — Special rules for the recognition of the acquired rights of nurses responsible for general care and midwives who have Polish qualifications
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.


title: Case C-133/04: Order of the President of the Court of 20 June 2006 — Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/31

         Order of the President of the Court of 20 June 2006 — Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-133/04) (1)

   (2006/C 224/60)

      Language of the case: Spanish

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

      (1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2004.


title: Case C-276/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (England and Wales) made on 20 July 2009 — T-Mobile (UK) Ltd v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/29

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (England and Wales) made on 20 July 2009 — T-Mobile (UK) Ltd v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs
   (Case C-276/09)
   2009/C 267/52
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (England and Wales)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: T-Mobile (UK) Ltd

      Defendant: The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

      Questions referred

               1.

               What are the characteristics of an exempt service that has ‘the effect of transferring funds and entail[sl changes in the legal and financial situation’?
               In particular:

                           (a)

                           Is the exemption applicable to services which would not otherwise have to be performed by any of the financial institutions which (i) make a debit to one account, (ii) make a corresponding credit to another account, or (iii) perform an intervening task between (i) or (ii)?

                           (b)

                           Is the exemption applicable to services which do not include the carrying out of tasks of making a debit to one account and a corresponding credit to another account, but which may, where a transfer of funds results, be seen in retrospect as having been the cause of that transfer?

               2.

               Does the exemption in Article 13B(d)(3) of the Sixth Directive (1) for ‘transactions concerning payments [or] transfers’ apply to a service of obtaining and processing payments by credit and debit cards, such as those performed by the taxpayer in the present case? In particular, where the transmission of settlement files at the end of each day by the taxpayer has the effect of automatically causing the customer's account to be debited and the taxpayer's account to be credited, will those services fall within the scope of Article 13B(d)(3)?

               3.

               Does the answer to Question 2 depend on whether the taxpayer itself obtains authorisation codes for onward transmission or obtains those codes through the agency of its acquiring bank?

               4.

               Does the exemption in Article 13B(d)(l) of the Sixth Directive for ‘the negotiation of credit’ apply to services such as those offered by the taxpayer in the present case in relation to credit card payments, whereby as a result of those services the customer's credit card account is debited with further amounts of credit?

               5.

               Does the exemption for ‘transactions concerning payments [or] transfers’ apply to services of accepting and processing payments made using third party agents, such as those offered by the taxpayer through the Post Office and PayPoint in the present case?

               6.

               Does the exemption for ‘transactions concerning payments [or] transfers’ apply to services of obtaining and processing payments made by cheque sent to the taxpayer or his agent, which payments have to be processed by the taxpayer and its bank?

               7.

               Does the exemption for ‘transactions concerning payments [or] transfers’ apply to services, such as those offered by the taxpayer in the present case, of receiving and processing payments made over the counter at a bank for credit, through the banking system, to the taxpayer's bank account?

               8.

               What particular factors have to be taken into account when deciding whether a charge (such as the payment handling charge in the present case) that is applied by a taxpayer to its customer in respect of the customer's choice to make payment to the taxpayer using a particular payment method, and which is individually identified in the contractual document and separately itemised in invoices issued to customers, is a separate supply for VAT purposes?

      (1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment
   OJ L 145, p. 1


title: Case T-116/01: Action brought on 25 May 2001 by P&O European Ferries (Vizcaya) S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 212/26               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      28.7.2001
Action brought on 14 May 2001 by Società Lavori                           —     breach of the principle of sound administration and of
Impianti Metano Sicilia SpA (SLIM SICILIA) against the                          the rights of the defence in so far as, in the present case,
         Commission of the European Communities                                 neither the Commission nor the Italian administrative
                                                                                authorities have seen fit to allow the applicant an
                                                                                opportunity effectively to express its point of view; failure
                        (Case T-105/01)                                         also to respect the applicant’s rights of defence as regards
                                                                                access to documents;
                        (2001/C 212/49)
                                                                          —     Breach of the principle of sound administration, on
                                                                                account of the delay in adopting the contested decision;
                                                                                the applicant emphasises that the decision was taken
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                              more than six years after the application for an extension
                                                                                and four years after Community financial aid was paid
                                                                                (end of December 1996/January 1997) in an amount
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                       which implied that the request for an extension had been
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                      granted. On the basis of that last factor, the applicant
European Communities on 14 May 2001 by Società Lavori                           argues that the principle of the protection of legitimate
Impianti Metano Sicilia SpA (SLIM SICILIA), represented by                      expectations has been contravened also;
Nazareno Saitta, Fabio Saitta, Mario Siragusa, Francesca Maria
Moretti and Cesare Lanciani, lawyers, against the Commission              —     Infringement of Article 12 of Regulation No 4258/88 in
of the European Communities.                                                    that the contested decision — bearing in mind that it has
                                                                                not been demonstrated in the present case that work on
                                                                                the project had been suspended for reasons relating to
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                     judicial proceedings — refuses to apply that provision to
                                                                                a situation the facts of which have been misunderstood
—     annul the contested decision in so far as it concerns the                 and/or misinterprets that provision in deeming the situ-
      applicant;                                                                ation to fall outside its scope.
—     in the alternative, annul the contested decision in so far
      as it states that the applicant’s ‘declared expenditure’
      before      31      March       1995         amounted       to
      ITL 23 930 772 264 instead of ITL 24 110 190 502 or                 (1) OJ L 193 of 31.7.1993, p. 34.
      more;
—     order the Commission to pay costs and fees.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant contests Decision D(2000)810575 of
12 December 2000 by which the Commission reduced the                      Action brought on 25 May 2001 by P&O European
Community funding initially granted in respect of the project             Ferries (Vizcaya) S.A. against the Commission of the
for the methanation of the city of Syracuse from ITL 11 billion                                European Communities
to ITL 9 572 308 905, that is to say, by ITL 1 427 691 095.
In so deciding, the Commission rejected the application for an
extension submitted by the Ministero del Bilancio e della                                          (Case T-116/01)
Programmazione Economica (Ministry of Economic Budgeting
and Planning) on the basis of an interpretation — which the
applicant does not accept — of Article 12 of Regulation                                            (2001/C 212/50)
(EEC) No 4254/88 laying down provisions for implementing
Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards the European
Regional Development Fund, as amended by Regulation (EEC)
No 2083/93 (1), and regarded as irrelevant the statements of                                 (Language of the case: English)
expenditure communicated after 31 March 1995.
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
The applicant has carried out and managed the project under               ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
licence for the Comune of Syracuse and has received the                   European Communities on 25 May 2001 by P&O European
Community funding affected by the contested decision. In                  Ferries (Vizcaya) S.A., a company incorporated under the laws
support of its claims, the applicant argues:                              of Spain, represented by Jeremy Lever QC and Daniel Beard,
                                                                          Barristers, Jaime Folguera Crespo and Julian Ellison, Solicitor,
—     breach of the obligation to state reasons;                          of Ashurst Morris Crisp, Brussels (Belgium).
 ---pagebreak--- 28.7.2001             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 212/27
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Finally, the applicant does not accept that the letter of intent
                                                                         gave rise to State aid to which the Treaty rules on State aid
—     annul Article 2 of the decision of 29 November 2000 of             applied or that, if there were any such aid, it was incompatible
      the Commission of the European Communities in Case                 with the common market. That question is, however, not of
      No. C32/93 declaring the aid scheme implemented by                 practical concern to the applicant, since, in the applicant’s
      Spain in favour of the shipping company Ferries Golfo de           submissions, no order can lawfully made for the recovery of
      Vizcaya to be incompatible with the common market;                 such aid, if any.
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                         (1) Judgment of 28.1.1999 in Case T-14/96, BAI v Commission
                                                                             [1999] ECR II-139.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant, formerly known as Ferries Golfo de Vizcaya
S.A., was granted alleged State aid relating to a new ferry service
between Bilbao (Spain) and Portsmouth (United Kingdom),                         Removal from the Register of Case T-163/00 (1)
pursuant to a letter of intent which was approved by the
Commission in June 1995. That approval decision was                                               (2001/C 212/51)
subsequently annulled by the Court of First Instance (1). The
decision contested in the present case was taken by the                                     (Language of the case: French)
Commission in November 2000 following a re-examination
of the case.                                                             By order of 28 March 2001, the President of the Chamber of
                                                                         the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has
                                                                         ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-163/00,
The applicant alleges that the contested decision is wrong,              Rosemarie Carotti v Court of Auditors of the European
insofar as it concludes that the agreement was not notified in           Communities.
accordance with Article 93(3) [now Article 88(3)] of the Treaty
because it was not notified by the Spanish Government. The
Commission did not raise with the applicant’s lawyers or with            (1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.
the Spanish Government any question about the insufficiency
in law of communication from the prospective beneficiary’s
lawyers, rather than from the Member State concerned, as
‘information’ for the purposes of Article 93(3) of the Treaty.
Furthermore, the information provided by the applicant’s
lawyers was used by the Commission for the purposes of its                      Removal from the Register of Case T-205/00 (1)
decision of June 1995.
                                                                                (2001/C 212/52)
The applicant further submits that a notified State aid that is
the subject of a favourable decision before it is granted is                                (Language of the case: French)
irrecoverable. The beneficiary has a legitimate expectation of
which it cannot be deprived by reason of annulment of the                By order of 27 March 2001, the President of the Chamber of
Commission’s favourable decision on the basis of which the               the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has
beneficiary accepted the aid. Any contrary solution would                ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-205/00,
undermine the entire scheme of State aid rules under the                 Renco SPA against the Council of the European Union.
Treaty and would have manifestly and gravely objectionable
consequences in practice.                                                (1) OJ C 285 of 7.10.2000.


title: Case T-404/03: Action brought on 16 December 2003 by A against the Court of Justice of the European Communities

text:
21.2.2004               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 47/31
Action brought on 16 December 2003 by A against the                        Action brought on 15 December 2003 by Nicolas Ravailhe
       Court of Justice of the European Communities                        against Committee of the Regions of the European Union
                          (Case T-404/03)                                                           (Case T-406/03)
                           (2004/C 47/60)
                                                                                (2004/C 47/61)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Court of Justice of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities on 16 December 2003 by A,                      An action against the Committee of the Regions of the
represented by Clara Marhuenda, lawyer, with an address for                European Union was brought before the Court of First Instance
service in Luxembourg.                                                     of the European Communities on 15 December 2003 by
                                                                           Nicolas Ravailhe, residing in Amiens (France), represented by
                                                                           Jean Philippe Brodsky, lawyer.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the two decisions adopted by the defendant, in its             The applicant claims that the Court should:
      capacity as appointing authority, on 10 April 2003 and
      6 June 2003 and, in so far as necessary, the decision of             —     order the defendant to reinstate the applicant in his post
      the defendant’s complaints committee of 16 September                       and restore his rights under the Staff Regulations as a
      2003 rejecting the applicant’s complaint;                                  member of the temporary staff of the Committee of the
                                                                                Regions with effect from 1 March 2003, taking account
—     order the defendant to pay to the applicant EUR 1 as                       of his salary and allowances as a member of the temporary
      token damages for the non-material damage suffered;                        staff (March 2003-April 2003), subsequently as unem-
                                                                                ployed (May 2003-October 2003) and of any other
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                                      income received until he is actually reinstated;
                                                                           —     In the alternative, order the defendant to pay to the
                                                                                applicant compensation in accordance with Article 47 of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                  the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the
                                                                                European Communities, namely three months’ salary and
Following several absences of the applicant, an official of the                  allowances as a member of the temporary staff in Grade
Court of Justice, on sick leave, the defendant, in its capacity as               A 7, step 3, together with default interest with effect from
appointing authority, referred the matter to an invalidity                       15 June 2003;
committee in order to determine whether the official could be
granted retirement on grounds of invalidity.                               —     order the defendant to pay to the applicant damages of
                                                                                EUR 15 000 by way of compensation for the non-
                                                                                material damage suffered;
The committee met on 9 April 2003 and decided that the
official was fit to return to duties, but proposed that the official       —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
be granted half-time working hours on medical grounds. By
letter of 10 April 2003, the Court of Justice called on the
applicant to return to work and granted authorisation for half-
time working until 6 June 2003 inclusive. By decision of
6 June 2003, the half-time working hours on medical grounds                Pleas in law and main arguments
was extended by 5 weeks and the applicant was requested to
return to work full-time on 14 July 2003.
                                                                           In support of his application, the applicant alleges infringement
                                                                           of Articles 2(b) and 8 of the Conditions of Employment of
By the present application, the applicant contests those two
                                                                           Other Servants of the European Communities and, in the
decisions, claiming that the opinion of the medical committee
                                                                           alternative, failure to observe the period of notice laid down in
on which they are based is vitiated by a defective statement of
                                                                           Articles 47 and 74 of those Conditions. Furthermore, he
reasons. The applicant further claims that at least two members
                                                                           alleges breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of
of the committee did not have available all the information
                                                                           officials and the principles of legitimate expectations, sound
necessary in order to make a decision in full knowledge of the
                                                                           administration and the interests of the service.
case.


title: Case C-257/10: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (formerly Regeringsrätten) — Sweden) — Försäkringskassan v Elisabeth Bergström (Migrant workers — Social security — Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — National of a Member State who has been pursuing a professional activity in Switzerland — Return to country of origin)

text:
               11.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/4

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (formerly Regeringsrätten) — Sweden) — Försäkringskassan v Elisabeth Bergström
   (Case C-257/10) (1)

   (Migrant workers - Social security - Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - National of a Member State who has been pursuing a professional activity in Switzerland - Return to country of origin)
   2012/C 39/05
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (formerly Regeringsrätten)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Försäkringskassan

      Defendant: Elisabeth Bergström

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (formerly Regeringsrätten) — Interpretation of Articles 3(1) and 72 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2), as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3427/89 of 30 October 1989 (OJ 1989 L 331, p. 1) and of the Agreement on the free movement of persons between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other (OJ 2002 L 114, p. 6) — Right to parental benefit (föräldrapenning) — National legislation making the right to an amount of family benefit higher than the basic guaranteed amount conditional upon completion of a period of affiliation with a sickness insurance scheme for a specified period — Amount of family benefit determined according to employment income earned in that Member State — Person who resides in a Member State (Sweden), but who has completed the entire reference period used for fixing the higher amount of family benefit as a member of a sickness insurance scheme in another State (Switzerland)

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 8(c) of the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons, signed at Luxembourg on 21 June 1999, and Article 72 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1386/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2001, must be interpreted as meaning that, where the legislation of a Member State makes the award of a family benefit — such as that at issue in the case before the referring court — conditional upon completion of periods of insurance, employment or self-employment, the institution of that Member State which is competent to make such an award must take into account for those purposes periods completed in their entirety in the Swiss Confederation.

               2.

               Article 8(a) of that Agreement, and Article 3(1), Article 23(1) and (2) and Article 72 of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended by Regulation No 1386/2001, and paragraph 1 of point N of Annex VI thereto must be interpreted as meaning that, where the amount of a family benefit, such as that at issue in the case before the referring court, falls to be determined in accordance with the rules governing sickness benefit, that amount — awarded to a person who has completed in full the necessary employment periods for acquiring that right in the territory of the other Contracting Party — must be calculated by taking into account the income of a person who has comparable experience and qualifications and who is similarly employed in the Member State in which that benefit is sought.

      (1)  OJ C 195, 17.7.2010.


title: Case T-103/05: Action brought on 11 February 2005 by P. against Commission of the European Communities

text:
               28.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 132/30

         Action brought on 11 February 2005 by P. against Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-103/05)
   (2005/C 132/54)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   An action against Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 11 February 2005 by P., residing in Barcelona (Spain), represented by Matías Griful I Ponsati, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               Annul the contested decision of 28 October 2004 and the decision of 10 May 2004;

               2.

               Uphold the applicant's right to receive his remuneration from 15 April 2004 until he is certified medically fit and able to work;

               3.

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The present action is against the decision of the appointing authority of 28 October 2004 which, after noting that the defendant's medical department had confirmed that the applicant was fit to travel and work on a half-time basis, confirmed suspension of payment of his salary from 15 April 2004 until the date on which he commenced performing his duties at the Commission's offices in Brussels.
   It is claimed in that connection that the applicant, whose appointment to a post at the Commission's Representative Office in Barcelona was justified by family circumstances, was subject to anxiety and depression as a result of the abolition of his post at that office.
   In support of his claims, the applicant alleges:

               —

               Infringement of Articles 11, 12 and 13 of the European Social Charter, in that they uphold entitlement to protection of health, safety, social security and social and medical assistance;

               —

               Infringement of Part II of the European Social Security Code of 16 April 1964, in particular Article 10 thereof, in that, by granting the right to home visits by a doctor, it grants patients a right not to have to leave their homes;

               —

               Infringement of Article 10 of Convention No 102 and Article 13 of Convention No 130 of the ILO;

               —

               Infringement of Articles 72 and 73 of the Staff Regulations.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 15 October 1998 in Case C-268/97: Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 86/609/EEC)

text:
C 378/2                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      5.12.98
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with               measures forthwith, the Portuguese Republic has failed to
Commission Directive 94/69/EC of 19 December 1994                    fulfil its obligations under the third paragraph of
adapting to technical progress for the twenty-first time             Article 189 of the EC Treaty and the combined provisions
Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of                 of Article 13 of that directive, Article 395 of and Annex
laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to          XXXVI to the Act concerning the conditions of accession
the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous             of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic and
substances (OJ L 381, 31.12.1994, p. 1), the Kingdom of              the adjustments to the Treaties (OJ L 302, 15.11.1985,
Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that              p. 23), the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its
directive Ð the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: C.               obligations under that directive, Ð the Court (Sixth
Gulmann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, J. C.                Chamber), composed of: P. J. G. Kapteyn, President of the
Moitinho de Almeida and J.-P. Puissochet, Judges; P.                 Chamber, G. Hirsch, G. F. Mancini, H. Ragnemalm and
LeÂger, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a           R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), Judges; S. Alber, Advocate-
judgment on 6 October 1998, in which it:                             General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                     15 October 1998, in which it:
1. Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
     and administrative provisions necessary to comply               1. Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
     with Commission Directive 94/69/EC of 19 December                    period the laws, regulations and administrative
     1994 adapting to technical progress for the twenty-                  provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
     first time Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the                       79/869/EEC of 9 October 1979 concerning the
     approximation of laws, regulations and administrative                methods of measurement and frequencies of sampling
     provisions relating to the classification, packaging and             and analysis of surface water intended for the
     labelling of dangerous substances, the Kingdom of                    abstraction of drinking water in the Member States,
     Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the               the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its
     first paragraph of Article 2 thereof;                                obligations under the combined provisions of that
                                                                          directive and of the Act concerning the conditions of
                                                                          accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese
2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                        Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties;
(1) OJ C 166, 30.5.1998.
                                                                     2. Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 252, 16.8.1997.
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        (Sixth Chamber)
                      of 15 October 1998                                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
       in Case C-229/97: Commission of the European                                         (Fifth Chamber)
            Communities v. Portuguese Republic (1)
                                                                                of 15 October 1998
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð
                                                                            in Case C-268/97: Commission of the European
       Failure to transpose fully Directive 76/869/EEC)
                                                                                Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium (1)
                         (98/C 378/03)
                                                                     (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð
                                                                                Directive 86/609/EEC)
              (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                                                                                (98/C 378/04)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                       (Language of the case: French)
           published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
In Case C-229/97: Commission of the European                                   published in the European Court Reports)
Communities (Agent: Francisco de Sousa Fialho) v.
Portuguese Republic (Agents: Luis Fernandes and JoaÄo
Lopes Fernandes) Ð Application for a declaration that, by            In Case C-268/97: Commission of the European
failing to adopt within the prescribed period the laws,              Communities (Agents: Hendrik van Lier and Lena Ström)
regulations and administrative provisions necessary to               v. Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: Jan Devadder) Ð
comply with Council Directive 79/869/EEC of 9 October                Application for a declaration that, by not adopting within
1979 concerning the methods of measurement and                       the prescribed period all the measures necessary to comply
frequencies of sampling and analysis of surface water                with Articles 14 and 22 of Council Directive 86/609/EEC
intended for the abstraction of drinking water in the                of 24 November 1986 on the approximation of laws,
Member States (OJ L 271, 29.10.1979, p. 44), and, in the             regulations and administrative provisions of the Member
alternative, by not informing the Commission of those                States relating to the protection of animals used for
 ---pagebreak--- 5.12.98                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 378/3
experimental and other scientific purposes (OJ L 358,                Chamber, G. Hirsch, G. F. Mancini, H. Ragnemalm and
18.12.1986, p. 1), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to              R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate-
fulfil its obligations under that directive and the EC Treaty        General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on
Ð the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J.-P.                      15 October 1998, in which it:
Puissochet, President of the Chamber, P. Jann, C.
Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward and L. Sevón (Rapporteur),
Judges, F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; R. Grass,                    1. Declares that by not adopting within the prescribed
Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 October 1998, in                    period all the measures necessary to comply with
which it:                                                                 Articles 14 and 22 of Council Directive 86/609/EEC
                                                                          of 24 November 1986 on the approximation of laws,
                                                                          regulations and administrative provisions of the
1. Declares that by not adopting within the prescribed                    Member States relating to the protection of animals
     period all the measures necessary to comply with                     used for experimental and other scientific purposes,
     Articles 14 and 22 of Council Directive 86/609/EEC                   the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
     of 24 November 1986 on the approximation of laws,                    obligations under that directive.
     regulations and administrative provisions of the
     Member States relating to the protection of animals
     used for experimental and other scientific purposes,
                                                                     2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
     the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
     obligations under that directive.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 295, 27.9.1997.
2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 295, 27.9.1997.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 15 October 1998
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        (Sixth Chamber)                                     in Case C-284/97: Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities v. French Republic (1)
                      of 15 October 1998
                                                                     (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð
       in Case C-283/97: Commission of the European                  Directive 93/40/EEC Ð Failure to transpose within the
            Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium (1)                                          prescribed period)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð                                       (98/C 378/06)
Directive 92/73/EEC Ð Failure to transpose within the
                       prescribed period)
                         (98/C 378/05)                                               (Language of the case: French)
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     In Case C-284/97: Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities (Agents: Fernando Castillo de la Torre
In Case C-283/97: Commission of the European                         and Olivier Couvert-CasteÂra) v. French Republic
Communities (Agents: Fernando Castillo de la Torre and               (Agent: Kareen Rispal-Bellinger and FreÂdeÂric Pascal) Ð
Olivier Couvert-CasteÂra) v. Kingdom of Belgium (Agent:              Application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the
Jan Devadder) Ð Application for a declaration that, by               laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary
failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative            to comply with Council Directive 93/40/EEC of 14 June
provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive                1993 amending Directives 81/851/EEC and 81/852/EEC
92/73/EEC of 22 September 1992 widening the scope                    on the approximation of the laws of the Member States
of Directives 65/65/EEC and 75/319/EEC on the                        relating to veterinary medicinal products (OJ L 214,
approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation             24.8.1993, p. 31), the French Republic has failed to fulfil
or administrative action relating to medicinal products              its obligations under the EC Treaty and that directive, Ð
and laying down additional provisions on homeopathic                 the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: P. J. G.
medicinal products (OJ L 297, 13.10.1992, p. 8), the                 Kapteyn, President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch, G. F.
Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations              Mancini, H. Ragnemalm and R. Schintgen (Rapporteur),
under the EC Treaty and that directive Ð the Court (Sixth            Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar,
Chamber), composed of: P. J. G. Kapteyn, President of the            has given a judgment on 15 October 1998, in which it:


title: Case T-83/10: Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2014  — Riva Fire v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for concrete reinforcing bars in bars or coils — Decision finding an infringement of Article 65 CS after the expiry of the ECSC Treaty on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Fixing of prices and payment terms — Limiting or controlling output or sales — Infringement of essential procedural requirements — Competence of the Commission — Legal basis — Consultation of the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Monopolies — Rights of the defence — Definition of the geographical market — Application of the principle of lex mitior — Infringement of Article 65 CS — Fines — Gravity and duration of the infringement — Extenuating circumstances — Proportionality — Application of the 1996 Leniency Notice)

text:
               2.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 34/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2014 — Riva Fire v Commission
   (Case T-83/10) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for concrete reinforcing bars in bars or coils - Decision finding an infringement of Article 65 CS after the expiry of the ECSC Treaty on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Fixing of prices and payment terms - Limiting or controlling output or sales - Infringement of essential procedural requirements - Competence of the Commission - Legal basis - Consultation of the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Monopolies - Rights of the defence - Definition of the geographical market - Application of the principle of lex mitior - Infringement of Article 65 CS - Fines - Gravity and duration of the infringement - Extenuating circumstances - Proportionality - Application of the 1996 Leniency Notice))
   (2015/C 034/25)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Riva Fire SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, M. Pappalardo and T. Ubaldi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by R. Sauer and B. Gencarelli, and subsequently by R. Sauer and R. Striani, acting as Agents, assisted by M. Moretto, lawyer)

      Re:

   Primarily, application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 7492 final of 30 September 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 65 CS (Case COMP/37.956 — Reinforcing bars, readoption), as amended by Commission Decision C(2009) 9912 final of 8 December 2009, and in the alternative application for a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Fixes the amount of the fine imposed on Riva Fire SpA at EUR 2 6 0 93  000;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders Riva Fire to bear its own costs and to pay three-quarters of the costs incurred by the European Commission; orders the Commission to bear one-quarter of its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.


title: Case T-410/07 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 18 February 2008 — Jurado Hermanos v OHIM (JURADO) (Interim measures — Community trade mark — Removal of the trade mark from the register — Application for restitutio in integrum — Inadmissibility)

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/28

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 18 February 2008 — Jurado Hermanos v OHIM (JURADO)
   (Case T-410/07 R)
   (Interim measures - Community trade mark - Removal of the trade mark from the register - Application for ‘restitutio in integrum’ - Inadmissibility)
   (2008/C 92/58)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Jurado Hermanos, SL (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: C. Martín Álvarez, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. López Fernández de Corres, acting as Agent)
   Re:
   Application for suspension of the removal from the register of Community word mark No 240218 and of the legal effects of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 September 2007 (R 866/2007-2) concerning the application for ‘restitutio in integrum’ brought by Jurado Hermanos, until the Court of First Instance has ruled on the action in the main proceedings
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Judgment of the Court of 2 October 2015 in Case E-3/15 — Liechtensteinische Gesellschaft für Umweltschutz v Gemeinde Vaduz (Municipality of Vaduz) (Directive 2011/92/EU on environmental impact assessment of public and private projects — Article 11 — Right of access to a judicial review procedure — Effect of EEA law in national legal orders — Principles of equivalence and effectiveness)

text:
               8.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 457/11

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 2 October 2015
   in Case E-3/15
   Liechtensteinische Gesellschaft für Umweltschutz v Gemeinde Vaduz (Municipality of Vaduz)
   (Directive 2011/92/EU on environmental impact assessment of public and private projects — Article 11 — Right of access to a judicial review procedure — Effect of EEA law in national legal orders — Principles of equivalence and effectiveness)
   (2016/C 457/08)
   In Case E-3/15, Liechtensteinische Gesellschaft für Umweltschutz and Gemeinde Vaduz (Municipality of Vaduz) – REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by the State Court of the Principality of Liechtenstein (Staatsgerichtshof des Fürstentums Liechtenstein) concerning the interpretation of Article 11 of Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 2 October 2015, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               Liechtenstein was under an obligation to implement Directive 2011/92/EU pursuant to Decision No 230/2012 of 7 December 2012 of the EEA Joint Committee and apply it to the environmental impact assessment procedure at issue in the main proceedings.

               2.

               It is not compatible with Article 11 of Directive 2011/92/EU to adopt a general environmental impact assessment decision, while deferring the resolution of crucial issues relating to the project’s environmental effects such as those set out in Article 5(3) of Directive 2011/92/EU to subsequent authorisation procedures with no access for non-governmental organisations promoting environmental protection to a review procedure before a judicial body. Whether crucial issues are at stake in this case is for the national court to decide.

               3.

               EEA law does not require that non-implemented EEA rules can be relied on directly before national courts in the EFTA States. However, it follows from EEA law that when interpreting national rules the national court is bound to apply, as far as possible, the methods of interpretation recognised by national law in order to achieve the result sought by Directive 2011/92/EU. This obligation arises on the day the respective legal act is made part of the EEA Agreement.

               4.

               It is for the referring court, in the light of the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, to determine the remedies that are available for an infringement of Article 11 of Directive 2011/92/EU.


               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/1

         2010/C 179/01
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 161, 19.6.2010

      Past publications

      OJ C 148, 5.6.2010

      OJ C 134, 22.5.2010

      OJ C 113, 1.5.2010

      OJ C 100, 17.4.2010

      OJ C 80, 27.3.2010

      OJ C 63, 13.3.2010

   These texts are available on:
   EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu


title: Case T-53/09: Order of the General Court of 1 December 2009 — Cafea GmbH v OHIM — Christian (BEST FARM) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/53

         Order of the General Court of 1 December 2009 — Cafea GmbH v OHIM — Christian (BEST FARM)
   (Case T-53/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)
   2010/C 24/95
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Cafea GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: C. Schumann and M. Hartmann, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: C. Jenewein, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Dieter Christian (Frankfurt am Main, Germany)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 November 2008 (Case R 420/2008-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Cafea GmbH and Dieter Christian.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               Cafea GmbH shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs).

      (1)  OJ C 90 of 18.4.2009.


title: Case C-206/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratif, Chalons-en-Champagne (Second Chamber), France, by judgment of that court of 25 April 2000 in the case of Henri Mouflin v Recteur de l'Académie de Reims; Syndicat Général de l'Éducation Nationale et de la Recherche Publique CFDT de la Marne, intervenor

text:
C 211/12                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       22.7.2000
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                     so, are the provisions of Article L. 24-1(3) of the Code des
                                                                                Pensions Civiles et Militaires de Retraite in breach of the
— Declare that, by maintaining in force Article 8 of Law                        principle of equal pay?
     223/90 in respect of contracts entered into prior to
     28 February 1998, the Italian Republic has failed to                  (2) If Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome is not applicable, do
     transpose Article 11(3) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC (1)                the provisions of Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December
     on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by                     1978 (1) preclude France’s maintaining provisions such as
     law, regulation or administrative action in Member States                  those of Article L. 24-1(3) of the Code des Pensions Civiles
     concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities,              et Militaires de Retraite?
     the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
     that directive;
                                                                           (1) Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the pro-
— Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                                 gressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for
                                                                               men and women in matters of social security (OJ 1979 L 6, p. 24).
The pleas in law and main arguments
Although, in principle, Article 3(2) and (3) of Law No 122/98
transposes Article 11(2) and (3) of Directive 89/552/EEC, the
derogation provided for in the last sentence of Article 3(3) of
Law No 122/98, which provides that the new provisions on
interruptions by advertisements do not apply to programmes
for which the rights were acquired prior to 28 February 1998,              Action brought on 25 May 2000 by the Commission of
leaves in force, only in respect of such contracts, Article 8 of             the European Communities against the Italian Republic
Law No 223/90. From that point of view, therefore,
Article 11(2) of the directive has not been transposed into
                                                                                (Case C-207/00)
Italian law and Article 11(3) has not been correctly transposed,
albeit strictly in relation to those contracts entered into prior
to 28 February 1998.                                                                                (2000/C 211/21)
(1) OJ 1989 L 298, p. 23.                                                  An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
                                                                           Court of Justice of the European Communities on 25 May
                                                                           2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                           represented by Karen Banks, Legal Adviser, and Laura Pignata-
                                                                           ro, of the Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for
                                                                           service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
                                                                           Cruz, of the Commission’s Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
                                                                           Kirchberg.
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
Administratif, Chalons-en-Champagne (Second Chamber),                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
France, by judgment of that court of 25 April 2000 in the
case of Henri Mouflin v Recteur de l’Académie de Reims;
                                                                           — Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
Syndicat Général de l’Éducation Nationale et de la Recher-
                                                                                and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
         che Publique CFDT de la Marne, intervenor
                                                                                Directive 97/36/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of
                                                                                the Council of 30 June 1997 amending Council Directive
                          (Case C-206/00)                                       89/552/EEC (2) on the coordination of certain provisions
                                                                                laid down by law, regulation or administrative action
                          (2000/C 211/20)                                       in Member States concerning the pursuit of television
                                                                                broadcasting activities, specifically Article 1(1) amending
                                                                                Article 1(c) of Directive 89/552/EEC; Article 1(2) which
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          replaces Article 2 of Directive 89/552/EEC but not
European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal Admini-                      Article 2(3), (4)(5) and (6); Article 1(3) which inserts
stratif (Administrative Court), Chalons-en-Champagne (Second                    Article 2a into Directive 89/552/EEC; Article 1(4) which
Chamber), of 25 April 2000, which was received at the Court                     introduces Article 3a(3) into Directive 89/552/EEC;
Registry on 25 May 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case                   Article 1(12), which replaces Article 10 of Directive
of Henri Mouflin v Recteur de l’Académie de Reims; Syndicat                     89/552/EEC, but not Article 10(2); Article 1(14) amending
Géneral de l’Éducation Nationale et de la Recherche Publique                   the first sentence of Article 12 of Directive 89/552/EEC;
CFDT de la Marne, intervenor, on the following questions:                       Article 1(15) which replaces Article 13 of Directive
                                                                                89/552/EEC; and finally Article 1(18) which adds a para-
(1) Do the pensions provided under the French retirement                        graph 2 to Article 16 to Directive 89/552/EEC, the Italian
     pension scheme for public servants rank as ‘pay’ under                     Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
     Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome, now Article 141 EC? If                  directive;


title: Case T-123/02: Action brought on 16 April 2002 by Carrs Paper Ltd. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 169/36                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       13.7.2002
According to the applicant, the Commission failed to establish                    specified therein at a rate substantially lower than 6,77 %;
the applicant’s participation in an infringement before January                   and
1993. The applicant claims that there is no proof that it
participated in 1992 in general cartel meetings nor national or
regional cartel meetings. Therefore, the burden of proof is not             —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
met and, as a consequence, the fine should be reduced.
The applicant claims further that the fine imposed is dispro-
portionate to its turnover in the relevant market and that the              Pleas in law and main arguments
application by the Commission of the Leniency notice (1)
applicable at the time violates the principle of legitimate
expectation and equal treatment.
                                                                            By the contested Decision, the Commission found that the
                                                                            applicant and ten other manufacturers of carbonless paper had
                                                                            infringed Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty and article 53(1) of
(1) Commission Notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines           the EEA Agreement by participating in a complex of agree-
    in cartel cases (OJ C 207, 18.7.1996, p. 4).                            ments and concerted practices by which they fixed price
                                                                            increases, allocated sales quotas and fixed market shares and
                                                                            set up machinery to monitor the implementation of the
                                                                            restrictive agreements.
                                                                            The applicant accepts that it infringed Article 81(1) EC and
                                                                            accepts that a fine may be imposed for its infringement. The
                                                                            applicant does however contest the gravity of the infringement
                                                                            in respect of which the Decision finds it liable.
Action brought on 16 April 2002 by Carrs Paper Ltd.
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                           (Case T-123/02)                                  The applicant submits that the Decision is inadequately
                                                                            reasoned and that the Commission made a manifest error in
                                                                            assessing the gravity of the applicant’s infringement. The
                           (2002/C 169/64)                                  applicant maintains that it did not know that it was party to
                                                                            an infringement which extended beyond the UK and Ireland,
                                                                            and that the findings of the Decision in this respect are
                     (Language of the case: English)                        not supported by sufficient evidence and are inadequately
                                                                            reasoned. The applicant also alleges that the commercial
                                                                            pressure to which the applicant was subjected by the ringleader
                                                                            of the cartel mitigates the gravity of its infringement.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 16 April 2002 by Carrs Paper Ltd.,                  Furthermore, the applicant submits that the fine is in any event
represented by Mr John Grayston and Mr André Bywater of                     disproportionate and should be significantly reduced. It points
Eversheds, Brussels (Belgium).                                              out that its participation in the cartel was marginal, that its
                                                                            cooperation with the Commission merits a reduction of more
                                                                            than 10 % in the fine imposed, that the state of the carbonless
                                                                            paper industry at the time justifies a reduction in the fine and
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 that the fine is disproportionate to the applicant’s ability to
                                                                            pay a fine.
—     fix the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by
      Article 3 of Commission Decision C(2001)4573 final
      corr. of 20 December 2001 relating to a proceeding
      pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of             Finally, the applicant submits that Article 3 (3) of the Decision
      the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/36.212 — Car-                        should be annulled, no reasons having been given for the
      bonless paper) at an amount substantially lower than                  imposition of a default interest rate of 6,77 %, being a 3,5 %
      EUR 1,57 million;                                                     premium over the ECB base rate.
—     annul Article 3, subparagraph 3, of the Decision as it
      concerns the applicant, alternatively fix the rate of interest


title: Case T-134/13: Action brought on 28 February 2013 — Polynt and Sitre v ECHA

text:
               4.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/26

         Action brought on 28 February 2013 — Polynt and Sitre v ECHA
   (Case T-134/13)
   2013/C 129/50
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Polynt SpA (Scanzorosciate, Italy); and Sitre Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Declare the application admissible and well-founded;

               —

               Partially annul Decision ED/169/2012 of the ECHA concerning the inclusion of cyclohexane-1,2-dicarboxylic anhydride, cis-cyclohexane-1,2-dicarboxylic anhydride and trans-cyclohexane-1,2-dicarboxylic anhydride (collectively referred to as ‘HHPA’) as Substances meeting the criteria set out in Article 57(f) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1) (‘REACH’), in accordance with Article 59 of REACH, as it relates to HHPA and its monomers; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment/law: (i) respiratory sensitisers are not covered by Article 57(f) of REACH and (ii) the ECHA did not provide sufficient justification and evidence in order to demonstrate that HHPA was of ‘equivalent concern’ to a carcinogen, mutagen or toxicant for reproduction (‘CMR’), category 1, since:

                           —

                           CMR substances trigger irreversible effects whereas, in the case of HHPA, the effects of respiratory sensitisation are not irreversible;

                           —

                           there is no consumer or worker exposure to HHPA;

                           —

                           the assessment of HHPA is based on data which is old and outdated; and

                           —

                           the assessment did not take into account all relevant data.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging breach of the rights of defence, as the applicants did not have the opportunity to fully defend their case because of the lack of objective criteria for considering whether a substance is of equivalent concern according to Article 57(f) REACH, especially in the case of a respiratory sensitiser such as HHPA, and because ECHA did not take into account all information available or provided by the industry during the commenting period.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality, as the ECHA had a choice of measures with respect to HHPA and by identifying HPPA as Substance of Very High Concern (‘SVHC’) caused the applicants disadvantages which are disproportionate in relation to the aims pursued.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1)


title: Case F-39/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 1 August 2016 — Sajewicz-Świackiewcz v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Pensions — Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights acquired under other schemes — Decision on recognition of additional pensionable years applying the new GIP relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure — Action manifestly unfounded)

text:
               3.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/45

      Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 1 August 2016 — Sajewicz-Świackiewcz v Commission
      (Case F-39/13) (1)

      ((Civil Service - Officials - Pensions - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights acquired under other schemes - Decision on recognition of additional pensionable years applying the new GIP relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure - Action manifestly unfounded))
      (2016/C 364/56)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Jolanta Sajewicz-Świackiewcz (Brussels, Belgium) (represented initially by: D. de Abreu Caldas, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal and S. Orlandi, lawyers, subsequently by D. de Abreu Caldas, J.-N. Louis and S. Orlandi, lawyers, then by J.-N. Louis and S. Orlandi, lawyers, and lastly by J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: C. Ehrbar and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents, subsequently by J. Currall and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents, then by G. Gattinara, acting as Agent, and lastly by G. Gattinara and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application for annulment of the decision fixing the credit for the pension rights acquired prior to entry into service at the Commission pursuant to the new GIP and the decision rejecting the complaint.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed as manifestly unfounded.

                  2.

                  Each party shall bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013, p. 60.


title: Action brought on 8 September 1997 by C against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-249/97)

text:
C 318/34                EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    18 . 10 . 97
the European Communities on 14 August 1997 by                        Action brought on 8 September 1997 by C against the
Comunidad Autonoma de Cantabria, Spain, represented                           Commission of the European Communities
by Juan Ignacio Saez Bereciartu of the Cantabria Bar.                                           Case T-248/97 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 318/65 )
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
— annul the reference to Astander from the 11th recital
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
      in the preamble to Council Regulation ( EC ) No 1013/          Instance of the European Communities on 8 September
      97 and remove the condition that aid provided for in           1997 by C, represented by Valeriano Hernandez Martin,
      Articles 1 and 2 is subject to the restriction of ship         of the Madrid Bar, with an address for service at 2 Calle
      conversions in the aforementioned shipyard.                    Conde de la Cimera, Madrid.
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                     — declare wholly null and void or non-existent the
                                                                          decision of the appointing authority of the European
The applicant complains that Council Regulation ( EC ) No                 Commission of 30 March 1992 , whereby C's
 1013/97 ('), of 2 June 1997 on aid to certain shipyards                  resignation was accepted and deemed to be definitive,
under restructuring states in the 11th recital that ship
conversions will not be carried out in the shipyard at               — acknowledge the applicant's current status as a
Astander. Although that statement is not expressly                        Commission official and either: ( a ) order payment of
reflected in the body of the Regulation, it is none the less              salary due to him but unpaid since 1 April 1992 ; or,
the case that it sets a condition for the award of the                    in the alternative ( b ) find that the invalidity pension
exceptional aid which is provided for in Articles 1 and 2                 to be granted to C following completion of the
thereof. Thus, Article 1 (4 ) refers to the possibility that aid          appropriate procedure should take effect from 1 April
 for the restructuring of the publicly-owned yards in Spain               1992 ,
 may be considered compatible with the common market
 up to an amount and in the forms specified in the                   — order the Commission of the European Communities
 Regulation itself, such aid being nevertheless subject, by               to pay the costs .
way of the recital under challenge , to there being no ship
 conversions carried out in the shipyard at Astander as
 long as it remains in public ownership.                             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                     The pleas in law and main arguments are those previously
                                                                     relied on in Case T-27/97 C v. Commission (').
 The applicant claims that the reference to Astander in the
 contested Regulation breaches the reservation expressly set
 forth in Article 189 of the Treaty of Rome in that a                (■) OJ C 181 , 14 . 6 . 1997, p . 15 .
 genuine decision is inserted in the preamble to a
 regulation when it should have been embodied in a
 separate piece of legislation rather than included in vague
 terms in a provision of general application . Although it
 uses a regulation, the Council makes its effectiveness
 subject to the observance of a decision, which is also              Action brought on 8 September 1997 by C against the
 mandatory but which affects the specific persons to whom                      Commission of the European Communities
 it is addressed .                                                                             ( Case T-249/97 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 318/66 )
 Moreover, the applicant alleges breach of the obligation to                          (Language of the case: Spanish)
 provide a statement of reasons for measures inasmuch as,
 in its view, it is impossible to understand why a general
 aid scheme is made subject to a restriction concerning a            An action against the Commission of the European
 specific and determined shipbuilding yard . None of this             Communities was brought before the Court of First
 has any basis at all in any accord or agreement which                Instance of the European Communities on 8 September
 might have given rise to a decision of such impact on the            1997 by C, represented by Valeriano Hernandez Martin,
 shipyard concerned and the surrounding districts .                   of the Madrid Bar, with an address for service in Madrid
                                                                      at 2 Calle Conde de la Cimera .
 O OJ L 148 , 6 . 6 . 1997, p . 1 .                                   The applicant claims that the Court should uphold this
                                                                      application seeking the grant of an invalidity pension to
                                                                      him in the terms set out below and order the Commission
                                                                      to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 18 . 10 . 97             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 318/35
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   payment, that is he suffers from an illness which prevents
                                                                      him from performing his normal duties and his invalidity
                                                                      is the result of a mental illness arising from an
This action has been brought against the implied rejection            occupational disease .
of the complaint submitted against the implied rejection of
the request for an invalidity pension .
In support of this application the applicant claims to fulfil
the conditions laid down by the applicable legislation
( Article 78 of the Staff Regulations and Articles 13 and 16                   Removal from the register of T-231/95 ( ')
of Annex VIII thereto ) for entitlement to the said pension:                                       ( 97/C 318/68 )
he suffers total permanent invalidity brought about while
completing periods of pensionable service which prevents
him from pursuing any employment. The medical check                               (Language of the case: Portuguese)
up prior to entering the service did not reveal that the
applicant was suffering from any illness or complaint.                By order of 4 July 1997 the President of Second Chamber
                                                                      of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                      Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
The applicant would observe that the granting of the                  Case T-231 /95 : SIC, Sociedade Independente de
pension is subject to the prior declaration that the                  Comunica^ao SA v. Commission of the European
acceptance of the resignation tendered by the applicant is            Communities .
null and void or non-existent. In this regard the
application refers to the arguments put forward in Case
T-27/97 C v. Commission ( M.                                          (') OJ C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 .
(') OJ C 181 , 15 . 6 . 1997, p . 15 .
                                                                              Removal from the register of T- 163/97 R (')
                                                                                ( 97/C 318/69
Action brought on 8 September 1997 by C against the
          Commission of the European Communities                                       (Language of the case: Dutch)
                          ( Case T-250/97)
                                                                      By order of 8 July 1997 the President of the Court of First
                            ( 97/C 318/67)                            Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                      removal from the register of Case T-163/97 R:
                                                                      Netherlands Antilles v. Commission of the European
                (Language of the case: Spanish)                       Communities .
An action against the Commission of the European                      (') OJ C 212, 12 . 7. 1997.
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 8 September
1997 by C, represented by Valeriano Hernandez Martin,
of the Madrid Bar, with an address for service at 2, Calle
Conde de la Cimera, Madrid .
                                                                               Removal from the register of T-155/96 (')
The applicant claims that the Court should award him an                                            ( 97/C 318/70 )
invalidity payment following the completion of the
appropriate procedure .                                                              (Language of the case: German)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   By order of 9 July 1997 the President of the Third
                                                                      Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First
                                                                      Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
This action has been brought against the implied rejection            removal from the register of Case T-155/96 : City of Mainz
of the complaint submitted against the implied rejection of           ( Federal Republic of Germany ) v. Commission of the
the request for an invalidity payment as provided for in              European Communities .
Article 73 of the Staff Regulations .
                                                                      (') OJ C 354, 23 . 11 . 1996 .
The applicant claims to fulfil all the requirements laid
down by law for entitlement to the abovementioned


title: Case C-15/12 P: Appeal brought on 13 January 2012 by Dashiqiao Sanqiang Refractory Materials Co. Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2011 in Case T-423/09 Dashqiao Sanqiang Refractory Materials Co. Ltd v Council

text:
               24.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/13

         Appeal brought on 13 January 2012 by Dashiqiao Sanqiang Refractory Materials Co. Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2011 in Case T-423/09 Dashqiao Sanqiang Refractory Materials Co. Ltd v Council
   (Case C-15/12 P)
   2012/C 89/21
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Dashiqiao Sanqiang Refractory Materials Co. Ltd (represented by: J.-F. Bellis and R. Luff, avocats)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare this appeal admissible and well founded;

               —

               Annul the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 16 December 2011 in Case T-423/09 Dashiqiao Sanqiang Refractory Materials Co. Ltd v Council and rule on the dispute which forms its subject-matter;

               —

               Uphold the claims submitted at first instance and, accordingly, annul the antidumping duty imposed on the appellant under Council Regulation (EC) No 826/2009 of 7 September 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 1659/2005 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain magnesia bricks originating in the People’s Republic of China, (1) in so far as the antidumping duty which it sets exceeds that which would be applicable if it had been determined on the basis of the method applied during the initial investigation to take account of the non-refund of the Chinese VAT on export in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic regulation; (2)

               —

               Order the Council to pay the costs of both instances.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant raises three pleas in law in support of its appeal, challenging the rejection by the General Court of its second plea for annulment alleging infringement by the Council and the Commission of Article 11(9) of the basic antidumping regulation.
   By its first plea in law, the appellant submits that the General Court errs in law inasmuch as it refuses to rule on the question of which method of comparison between the export price and the normal value had been applied in the initial investigation and therefore could not validly conclude that there was no change of methodology for the purposes of Article 11(9) of the basic regulation in the review investigation. In reality, there was a radical change in method of comparison between the initial investigation, when the comparison was made on a ‘VAT excluded’ basis, and the review, when the comparison was made on a ‘VAT included’ basis. Application of the latter methodology led to a higher dumping margin than that which would have resulted from application of the methodology used in the initial investigation.
   By its second plea in law, the appellant argues that the General Court errs in law inasmuch as it considers that the institutions are bound no longer to apply the method of comparison between the export price and the normal value applied in the initial investigation if that leads to an adjustment not authorised under Article 2(10)(b) of the basic regulation, thus confusing the concepts of ‘adjustment’ and ‘method of comparison’.
   By its third plea in law, the appellant submits that the General Court errs in law inasmuch as it concludes that the difference in the rate of refund of VAT on export between the period covered by the initial investigation and that covered by the review constitutes a change in circumstances which justifies a change in methodology, whereas it was not proven that that difference rendered the method of comparison used in the initial investigation inapplicable. Since the exception on the ground of a ‘change in circumstances’ is to be interpreted strictly, the reasoning in paragraphs 62 to 64 of the judgment under appeal clearly does not meet that rigorous requirement.

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 240, p. 7.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1).


title: Case C-203/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 13 April 2017 — Eberhard Schmeer v TUIfly GmbH

text:
               10.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 13 April 2017 — Eberhard Schmeer v TUIfly GmbH
   (Case C-203/17)
   (2017/C 221/14)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Hannover

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Eberhard Schmeer

      Defendant: TUIfly GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the absence on sick leave of a significant part of an operating air carrier’s staff for flight operation an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1) In the event that the first question is answered in the affirmative: how high must the rate of absence be to constitute such an extraordinary circumstance?

               2.

               In the event that the first question is answered in the negative: is the spontaneous absence, due to unauthorised work stoppage under employment law or collective agreements (‘wildcat strike’), of a significant part of an operating air carrier’s staff for flight operation an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? In the event that the second question is answered in the affirmative: how high must the rate of absence be to constitute such an extraordinary circumstance?

               3.

               In the event that the first or the second question is answered in the affirmative: must the extraordinary circumstance itself have been present at the time the flight was cancelled or is the operating air carrier entitled to devise a new flight plan pursuant to economic considerations?

               4.

               In the event that the first or the second question is answered in the affirmative: does the avoidability criterion relate to the extraordinary circumstance or, rather, to the consequences of the occurrence of the extraordinary circumstance?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.