title: Case T-730/15: Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2017 — DI v EASO (Appeal — Civil service — EASO staff — Member of the contract staff — Fixed-term contract — Probationary period — Dismissal decision — Action for annulment and for damages — Dismissal of the action as manifestly inadmissible at first instance — Rule of correspondence between the application and the complaint — Article 91(2) of the Staff Regulations)

text:
               18.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2017 — DI v EASO
   (Case T-730/15) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil service - EASO staff - Member of the contract staff - Fixed-term contract - Probationary period - Dismissal decision - Action for annulment and for damages - Dismissal of the action as manifestly inadmissible at first instance - Rule of correspondence between the application and the complaint - Article 91(2) of the Staff Regulations))
   (2017/C 121/39)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: DI (represented by: I. Vlaic and G. Iliescu, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Asylum Support Office (EASO) (represented by: W. Stevens, acting as Agent, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

      Re:

   Appeal against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 15 October 2015, DI v EASO (F-113/13, EU:F:2015:120), seeking to have that order set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 15 October 2015, DI v EASO (F-113/13);

               2.

               Refers the case to a chamber of the General Court other than that which ruled on the present appeal;

               3.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 98, 14.3.2016.


title: Action brought on 20 May 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic (Case C-197/98)

text:
25.7.98                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 234/17
    they are of special importance for the successful                          conditions such as those imposed in Great Britain for
    deployment of the contractual employee, otherwise to                       Reduced Earnings Allowance from 1988Ð89 onwards
    the extent of one half if the service started not later                    are necessary to ensure coherence between schemes or
    than 30 April 1995, and if it started later to the extent                  otherwise fall within the permitted exclusion in
    of one half but only in so far as they do not exceed a                     Article 7?
    total of three years?
                                                                         3.    If those unequal age conditions are not within the
    If Questions 1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative,
                                                                               permittd exclusion in Article 7, then does the doctrine
                                                                               of direct effect require the national court (in the
3. Are periods completed in institutions in Member                             absence of national legislation to comply with the
    States comparable to the said institutions to be taken                     Directive) to rectify the inequality by awarding an
    into account without temporal limitation?                                  additional payment to each individual concerned in
                                                                               any week when the payment prescribed under the
                                                                               occupational accident and disease scheme for him or
(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475.                             her is lower than for a person of the other sex but in
                                                                               otherwise similar circumstances (the comparator'),
                                                                               without regard to:
                                                                               (a) any converse advantage in other weeks when, for
                                                                                the same individual, a higher payment is
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Social Security                          prescribed than for the comparator; and/or
Commissioner, by order of 8 May 1998, in the cases of
Regina Virginia Hepple, Anna Stec, Patrick Vincent Lunn,
Oliver Kimber and Sybil Spencer against the Adjudication                       (b) the existence or exercise of sex-differentiated
                              Officer                                              options under the pension scheme to choose the
                                                                                pension starting age, the effect of which in
                        (Case C-196/98)
                                                                                conjunction with the unequal conditions under the
                          (98/C 234/33)                                            occupational accident and disease scheme may be
                                                                                to cause altered (and unequal) weekly payments
                                                                                under that scheme: in some weeks to the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                             advantage of the individual, in others to the
European Communities by an order of the Social Security                            comparator?
Commissioner of 8 May 1998, which was recevied at the
Court Registry on 22 May 1998, for a preliminary ruling
in the cases of Regina Virginia Hepple, Anna Stec, Patrick                     Or should some account be taken of such matters,
Vincent Lunn, Oliver Kimber and Sybil Spencer against                          and if so what are the principles to be applied in
the Adjudication Officer, on the following questions:                          relation to them in giving direct effect to Article 4?
1.   Does Article 7 of Council Directive 79/7/EEC (1)                    (1) Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the
                                                                             progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment
     permit a Member State to impose unequal age
                                                                             for men and women in matters of social security (OJ L 6 of
     conditions linked to the different pension ages for                     10.1.1979, p. 24).
     men and women under its statutory old-age pension
     scheme, on entitlement to a benefit having the
     characteristics of Reduced Earnings Allowance under
     a statutory occupational accident and disease scheme,
     so as to produce different weekly cash payments
     under that scheme for men and women in otherwise
     similar circumstances, in particular where the
     inequality:                                                         Action brought on 20 May 1998 by the Commission of
                                                                          the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
     (a) is not necessary for any financial reason connected                                    (Case C-197/98)
         with either scheme; and
                                                                                (98/C 234/34)
     (b) never having been imposed before, is imposed for
         the first time many years after the inception of the
         two schemes and also after 23 December 1984,                    An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought
         the latest date for the Directive to be given full              before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
         effect under Article 8?                                         on 20 May 1998 by the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities, represented by M. Patakia and B. Mongin,
                                                                         both of its Legal Service, with an address for service in
2.   If the answer to Question I is Yes, what are the                    Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of
     considerations that determine whether unequal age                   its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
 ---pagebreak--- C 234/18              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    25.7.98
The Commission claims that the Court should:                        ruling in the case of 1) Mr G. Everson and 2) Mr T. J.
                                                                    Barrass against 1) Secretary of State for Trade and
                                                                    Industry and 2) Bell Lines Ltd (in liquidation), on the
Ð declare that, by not taking the necessary measures to             following question:
     comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of
     23 March 1995 in Case C-365/93 (1) and, in particular,         Where
     by not having yet adopted, and communicated to the
     Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative           (i)   an employee works in one Member State for an
     provisions necessary to comply fully with Council                    employer incorporated in another Member State; and
     Directive 89/48/EEC (2) of 21 December 1988 on a
     general system for the recognition of higher-education         (ii) the employer has a branch in the Member State in
     diplomas awarded on completion of professional                       which the employee works, and that branch is
     education and training of at least three years'                      registered under the national provisions implementing
     duration, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its             Council Directive 89/666/EEC (1) (the Eleventh
     obligations under Article 171 of the EC Treaty;                      Company Law Directive), although it is not
                                                                          incorporated and does not have legal personality
Ð order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                           separate from that of the employer, in that Member
                                                                          State; and
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 (iii) both the employer and the employee are required to
                                                                          make social security contributions in the Member
                                                                          State in which the employee works;
Under Article 171 of the EC Treaty, if a Member State
fails to take, within the time-limit laid down by the               under Article 3 of Council Directive 80/987/EEC (2) of
Commission, the necessary measures to comply with a                 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the
judgment in which the Court has found that the Member               Member States relating to the protection of employees in
State in question failed to fulfil its obligations under the        the event of the insolvency of their employer, which
Treaty, the Commission may bring the case before the                guarantee institution is responsible for the payments
Court of Justice. In so doing the Commission is to specify          thereby due; is it
the amount of the lump sum or penalty payment to be
paid by the Member State concerned which it considers               (a) the guarantee institution in the Member State in
appropriate in the circumstances. The failure fully to                    which insolvency proceedings have been commenced,
transpose Directive 89/48/EEC into Greek law constitutes                  or
a breach of the fundamental principles of the free
movement of persons and the freedom to provide services,
                                                                    (b) the guarantee institution in the Member State in
and three years have already passed since the Court gave
                                                                          which the employee works and in which the
judgment in Case C-365/93. In view of the seriousness and
                                                                          employer has a permanent commercial presence?'
duration of the breach and the need to ensure that the
sanction has a deterrent effect, the Commission invites the
                                                                    (1) Eleventh Council Directive 89/666/EEC of 21 December 1989
Court to impose a penalty payment of ECU 41 000 per                     concerning disclosure requirements in respect of branches
day from the day on which the Hellenic Republic is                      opened in a Member State by certain types of company
notified of the judgment of the Court in this case until the            governed by the law of another State (OJ L 395 of
day on which the breach ceases.                                         30.12.1989, p. 36).
                                                                    (2) OJ L 283 of 20.10.1980, p. 23.
(1) Case C-365/93 Commission v Greece [1995] ECR I-499.
(2) OJ L 19 of 24.1.1989, p. 16.
                                                                    Appeal brought on 25 May 1998 by Anthony Goldstein
                                                                    against the order made on 16 March 1998 by the Third
                                                                    Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Industrial                Communities in Case T-235/95, between Anthony
Tribunal, Bristol, by order of that court of 6 May 1998,                   Goldstein and the Commission of the European
in the case of 1) Mr G. Everson and 2) Mr T. J. Barrass                                       Communities
against 1) Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and 2)                                (Case C-199/98 P)
                Bell Lines Ltd (in liquidation)
                                                                                (98/C 234/36)
                       (Case C-198/98)
                        (98/C 234/35)                               An appeal against the order made on 16 March 1998 by
                                                                    the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                    European Communities in Case T-235/95, between
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the              Anthony Goldstein and the Commission of the European
European Communities by an order of the Industrial                  Communities, was brought before the Court of Justice of
Tribunal, Bristol, of 6 May 1998, which was received at             the European Communities on 25 May 1998 by Anthony
the Court Registry on 25 May 1998, for a preliminary                Goldstein, a medical practitioner, represented by Mr


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) of 14 May 1998 in Case C-48/96 P: Windpark Groothusen GmbH & Co. Betriebs KG v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal - Financial support in the energy sector - Thermie programme - Right to full legal protection - Duty to state reasons - Right to a hearing - Discretion)

text:
C 234/6               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      25.7.98
within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58             proceedings pending before that court between Mr and
of the Treaty, in respect of the formation of public limited         Mrs Robert Gilly and Directeur des Services Fiscaux du
liability companies and the maintenance and alteration of            Bas-Rhin Ð on the interpretation of Articles 6, 48 and
their capital, with a view to making such safeguards                 220 of the EC Treaty Ð the Court, composed of: G. C.
equivalent (OJ L 26 of 30.1.1977, p. 1), and on the                  Rodríguez Iglesias, President, M. Wathelet, (Rapporteur)
abusive exercise of a right arising from a provision of              and R. Schintgen, (Presidents of Chambers), G. F.
Community law, the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez               Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L.
Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm and M.                 Murray, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, L. Sevón and K. M.
Wathelet (Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini, J. C.              Ioannou, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate
Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, (Rapporteur), J. L.           General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the
Murray, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P.             Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 May 1998, in
Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate General;             which it has ruled:
H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
given a judgment on 12 May 1998, in which it has ruled:              1. The second indent of Article 220 of the EC Treaty
                                                                          does not have direct effect.
Community law does not preclude national courts from
applying a provision of national law in order to assess              2. On a proper construction, Article 48 of the EC Treaty
whether a right arising from a provision of Community                     does not preclude the application of provisions such as
law is being exercised abusively. However, where such an                  those in Articles 13(5)(a), 14(1) and 16 of the
assessment is made, a shareholder relying on Article 25(1)                Convention signed in Paris on 21 July 1959 between
of the Second Council Directive 77/91/EEC of                              the French Republic and the Federal Republic of
13 December 1976 on coordination of safeguards which,                     Germany for the avoidance of double taxation, as
for the protection of the interests of members and others,                amended by the protocols signed in Bonn on 9 June
are required by Member States of companies within the                     1969 and 28 September 1989, under which the tax
meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the                      regime applicable to frontier workers differs depending
Treaty, in respect of the formation of public limited                     on whether they work in the private sector or the
liability companies and the maintenance and alteration of                 public sector and, where they work in the public
their capital, with a view to making such safeguards                      sector, on whether or not they have only the
equivalent, cannot be deemed to be abusing the right                      nationality of the State of the authority employing
arising from that provision merely because the increase in                them, and the regime applicable to teachers differs
capital contested by him has resolved the financial                       depending on whether their residence in the State in
difficulties threatening the existence of the company                     which they are teaching is for a short period or not.
concerned and has clearly ensured to his economic benefit,
or because he has not exercised his preferential right under         3. On a proper construction, Article 48 of the Treaty
Article 29(1) of that directive to acquire new shares issued              does not preclude the application of a tax credit
on the increase in capital at issue.                                      mechanism such as that provided for in
                                                                          Article 20(2)(a)(cc) of the said convention.
(1) OJ C 40 of 8.2.1997.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 370 of 7.12.1996.
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       of 12 May 1998                                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
in Case C-336/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal Administratif, Strasbourg): Mr and Mrs                                         of 14 May 1998
Robert Gilly v Directeur des Services Fiscaux du Bas-
                                                                     in Case C-48/96 P: Windpark Groothusen GmbH & Co.
                            Rhin (1)
                                                                              Betriebs KG v Commission of the European
(Articles 6, 48 and 220 of the EC Treaty Ð Equal                                             Communities (1)
treatment Ð Bilateral convention for the avoidance of
                                                                     (Appeal Ð Financial support in the energy sector Ð
            double taxation Ð Frontier workers)
                                                                     Thermie programme Ð Right to full legal protection Ð
                         (98/C 234/10)                                Duty to state reasons Ð Right to a hearing Ð Discretion)
                                                                                (98/C 234/11)
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
  (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-336/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal Administratif,                    In Case C-48/96 P: Windpark Groothusen GmbH & Co.
Strasbourg, France, for a preliminary ruling in the                  Betriebs KG, a company governed by German law,
 ---pagebreak--- 25.7.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 234/7
established at Groothusen-Krummhörn (Germany),                       President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen, G. F. Mancini and
represented by Professor Detlef Schumacher, Bremen, and              G. Hirsch (Rapporteur) Judges, M. B. Elmer, Advocate
Benno Grunewald, Rechtsanwalt, Bremen Ð appeal                       General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a
against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First           judgment on 14 May 1998, in which it:
Chamber) of 13 December 1995 in Case T-109/94
Windpark Groothusen v Commission [1995] ECR II-3007,                 1. Sets aside points 1, 2 and 4 of the operative part of
seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other party to               the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
the proceedings being Commission of the European                          European Communities of 26 June 1996 in Case T-91/
Communities, represented by Jürgen Grunwald Ð the                         95 De Nil and Impens v Council;
Court (Third Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann,
President of Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,
(Rapporteur) and J.-P. Puissochet, Judges; G. Cosmas,                2. Dismisses the applicants' claim for compensation for
Advocate General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator,                    non-material damage;
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 May 1998,
in which it:                                                         3. Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance for
                                                                          judgment on the applicants' claim for compensation
                                                                          for material damage;
1. Dismisses the appeal;
                                                                     4. Reserves the costs.
2. Orders the appellant to pay the costs.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 269 of 14.9.1996.
( ) OJ C 108 of 13.4.1996.
 1
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                         (Fifth Chamber)
                       (Sixth Chamber)                                                      of 14 May 1998
                       of 14 May 1998                                in Case C-364/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                     the Bezirksgericht für Handelssachen Wien): Verein für
in Case C-259/96 P: Council of the European Union v                  Konsumenteninformation v Österreichische Kreditversiche-
           Lieve de Nil and Christiane Impens (1)                                              rungs AG (1)
(Appeal Ð Officials Ð Internal competition Ð Measures                (Directive 90/314/EEC on package travel, package
implementing a judgment annulling a decision Ð                       holidays and package tours Ð Extent of protection against
Promotion to a higher category following a competition                           the risk of the organiser's insolvency)
with no retroactive effect Ð Material and non-material
                                                                                (98/C 234/13)
                           damage)
                        (98/C 234/12)                                               (Language of the case: German)
               (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       In Case C-364/97: reference to the Court under Article 177
         published in the European Court Reports)                    of the EC Treaty from the Bezirksgericht für
                                                                     Handelssachen Wien for a preliminary ruling in the
In Case C-259/96 P: appeal by the Council of the                     proceedings pending before that court between Verein für
European Union (Agents: Jean-Paul JacqueÂ, Diego Canga               Konsumenteninformation und Österreichische Kreditversi-
Fano and TheÂreÁse Blanchet) against the judgment of the             cherungs AG Ð on the interpretation of Council Directive
Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 26 June 1996             90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package
in Case T-91/95 De Nil and Impens v Council [1996]                   holidays and package tours (OJ L 158 of 23.6.1990,
ECR-SC II-959, seeking to have that judgment set aside,              p. 59), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C.
the other parties to the proceedings being Lieve de Nil, an          Gulmann, (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, M.
official of the European Union, residing in Wolvertem                Wathelet, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, J.-P. Puissochet and
(Belgium) and Christiane Impens, an official of the                  L. Sevón, Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate General;
Council of the European Union, residing in Brussels,                 L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, Thierry Demaseure,                  given a judgment on 14 May 1998, in which it has ruled:
VeÂronique Leclercq and Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices             Article 7 of Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June
of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange, the                    1990 on package travel, package holidays and package
Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: H. Ragnemalm,                    tours is to be interpreted as covering, as security for the


title: Case C-49/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark)) — The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs v Sunico ApS, M & B Holding ApS, Sunil Kumar Harwani (Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 1(1) — Scope — Concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’ — Action brought by a public authority — Damages in respect of involvement in a tax fraud by a third party not subject to VAT)

text:
               9.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 325/6

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark)) — The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs v Sunico ApS, M & B Holding ApS, Sunil Kumar Harwani
   (Case C-49/12) (1)

   (Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 1(1) - Scope - Concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’ - Action brought by a public authority - Damages in respect of involvement in a tax fraud by a third party not subject to VAT)
   2013/C 325/08
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Østre Landsret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

      Defendants: Sunico ApS, M & B Holding ApS, Sunil Kumar Harwani,

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Østre Landsret — Interpretation of Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Scope — Whether or not it covers a claim for damages in respect of non-payment of value added tax brought by the tax authorities of a Member State against undertakings and natural persons resident in another Member State and based on an alleged unlawful means conspiracy under the law of tort

      Operative part of the judgment

   The concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’ within the meaning of Article 1(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that it covers an action whereby a public authority of one Member State claims, as against natural and legal persons resident in another Member State, damages for loss caused by a tortious conspiracy to commit value added tax fraud in the first Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 21.4.2012.


title: Case C-17/17: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (United Kingdom) made on 16 January 2017 — Grenville Hampshire v The Board of the Pension Protection Fund

text:
               13.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (United Kingdom) made on 16 January 2017 — Grenville Hampshire v The Board of the Pension Protection Fund
   (Case C-17/17)
   (2017/C 078/21)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Court of Appeal

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Grenville Hampshire

      Defendant: The Board of the Pension Protection Fund

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 8 of Directive 80/987/EEC (1) (now superseded by Article 8 of Directive 2008/94/EC (2)) require member states to ensure that every individual employee receives at least 50 % of the value of his accrued entitlement to old-age benefits in the event that his employer becomes insolvent (with the sole exception of cases of abuse, to which Article 10(a) of that Directive applies)?

               2.

               Alternatively, subject to the findings of the national courts regarding the facts of the case, is it sufficient under Article 8 of Directive 80/987/EEC for a member state to have a system of protection where employees usually receive more than 50 % of the value of their accrued entitlement to old-age benefits but some individual employees receive less than 50 % by virtue of:

                           (i)

                           a financial cap on the amount of compensation paid to employees (in particular employees who have not reached their pension scheme’s normal pension age at the time of the employer’s insolvency); and/or

                           (ii)

                           rules limiting the annual increases in the compensation paid to employees or the annual revaluation of their entitlements prior to pension age?

               3.

               Is Article 8 of Directive 80/987/EEC directly effective in the circumstances of the present case?

      (1)  Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (OJ 1980, L 283, p. 23).

      (2)  Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (OJ 2008, L 283, p. 36).


title: Case C-508/07 P: Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 8 October 2008 — Cain Cellars, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               10.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/18

         Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 8 October 2008 — Cain Cellars, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-508/07 P) (1)

   (2009/C 6/32)

      Language of the case: German

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

      (1)  OJ C 22, 26.1.2008.


title: Case T-54/09: Action brought on 11 Februar 2009 — XXXLutzMarken v OHIM — Natura Selection (Linea Natura Natur hat immer Stil)

text:
               18.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/30

         Action brought on 11 Februar 2009 — XXXLutzMarken v OHIM — Natura Selection (Linea Natura Natur hat immer Stil)
   (Case T-54/09)
   2009/C 90/48
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: XXXLutzMarken (Wels, Austria) (represented by: H. Pannen, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Natura Selection SL (Barcelona, Spain)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 November 2008 in Case R 1787/2007-2;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: XXXLutzMarken

      Community trade mark concerned: figurative mark ‘LineaNatura Natur hat immer Stil’ for goods in Classes 8, 14, 16, 20, 21, 24, 25 and 27 (Registration No 4 626 693)

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Natura Selection S.L.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark ‘natura selection’ (Community trade mark No 2 016 384) for goods and services in Classes 3, 14, 16, 20, 25, 35, 38, 39 and 42, and further Community trade marks and Spanish mark comprising the word ‘natura’, for goods and services in Classes 3, 14, 16, 20, 21, 24, 25, 27, 28, 35, 39 and 42

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upholding the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejection of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), since there is no likelihood of confusion between the conflicting marks

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/941 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1)


title: Case T-8/13: Order of the General Court of 21 May 2015 — ClientEarth and Others v Commission

text:
               13.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/25

         Order of the General Court of 21 May 2015 — ClientEarth and Others v Commission
   (Case T-8/13) (1)

   (2015/C 228/32)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 71, 9.3.2013.


title: Case C-199/03: Action brought on 13 May 2003 by Ireland against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
23.8.2003                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 200/7
1.    Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November                   Action brought on 13 May 2003 by Ireland against the
      1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of                     Commission of the European Communities
      the system of export refunds on agricultural products, as
      amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1829/94 of
      26 July 1994 imposes no limit on the length of time by which
                                                                                (Case C-199/03)
      a time-limit may be extended for the benefit of an exporter
      under Article 47(4) of the regulation. It is for the competent
      national authorities to set the length of extensions of time in
      accordance with the particular circumstances of the case, taking                                 (2003/C 200/13)
      particular account of the degree of diligence with which the
      exporter seeking the extension of time has acted, the nature of
      the difficulties confronting the exporter and the amount of time
      which it will reasonably take to overcome those difficulties.
                                                                              An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
                                                                              nities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
2.    Exporters have no right to apply directly to national courts for        Communities on 13 May 2003 by Ireland, represented by
      an extension of time of a specific duration but do have a legal         D. J. O'Hagan, acting as agent, assisted by P. Gallagher SC and
      right of recourse against decisions taken by competent national         P. McGarry, Barrister, with an address for service in Luxem-
      authorities under Article 47(4) of Regulation No 3665/87, as            bourg.
      amended by Regulation No 1829/94. The detailed rules and
      parameters of any such procedure shall be governed by the
      national law of the Member States, in accordance with the               The Applicant claims that the Court should:
      principles of effectiveness and equivalence as defined in Commu-
      nity law.
                                                                              1.    declare the action admissible;
(1) OJ C 44 of 16.2.2002.
                                                                              2.    annul Commission Decision C(2003)99 reducing assis-
                                                                                tance granted from the European Social Fund under
                                                                                Commission Decisions C(94)3226 of 29 November 1994
                                                                                (operational programme for human resources develop-
                                                                                ment) in the framework of the project 940002IR1;
                                                                                C(94)1972 of 29 July 1994 (operational programme for
                                                                                tourism), in the framework of the project 940001IR1;
                                                                                C(94)2613 of 15 November 1994 (operational programme
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Sozialgericht                             for industrial development), in the framework of the
Stuttgart by order of that Court of 19 March 2003 in the                            project 940004IR1, approving operational programmes
case of Betriebskrankenkasse der Robert Bosch GmbH                                  under objective 1 in Ireland, in whole or in part, or in
against Federal Republic of Germany, represented by the                             respect of such periods or amounts as the Court should
                       Bundesversicherungsamt                                       determine;
                             (Case C-193/03)
                                                                              3.    order the Commission to bear the costs of the proceed-
                                                                                ings.
                             (2003/C 200/12)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Sozialgericht Stuttgart
(Social Court, Stuttgart) of 19 March 2003, received at the                   Pleas in law and main arguments
Court Registry on 9 May 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Betriebskrankenkasse der Robert Bosch GmbH against
Federal Republic of Germany, represented by the Bundesversi-
cherungsamt on the following question:                                        1.    The Applicant submits that it is apparent from the
                                                                                contested decision that the Commission manifestly failed
                                                                                to properly consider the evidence furnished by Ireland
Whether Article 34 of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 (1)                                which unambiguously demonstrated that in fact there was
precludes a practice, in implementation of Paragraph 13(3)                          no overpayment or overfinancing in relation to ESF
SGB V, of flat-rate reimbursement by an insurer of costs for                        eligible projects. Because of a mistaken characterisation
medical treatment in another Community country, on the                              of the exercise carried out by Ireland to demonstrate that
model of similar provisions on small amounts.                                       no such claim of overpayment or overfinancing occurred,
                                                                                and because of its mistaken belief that the evidence
                                                                                adduced by Ireland somehow would have an impact on
(1) OJ L 74 of 27.3.1972, p. 1.                                                     the financial tables, the Commission failed to properly
                                                                                consider the evidence and drew incorrect conclusions
                                                                                from certain elements.
 ---pagebreak--- C 200/8               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                           23.8.2003
     The Commission's analysis ignored its obligation, before                    condition in which it is imported the determining
     claiming overpayment or overfinancing had occurred, to                      factor?
     take into account the actual costs of the eligible projects
     and the actual matching co-funding and the correct
     exchange calculations from the Irish authorities before                3.   If the Court of Justice concludes that the product in
     determining whether Ireland breached the 75 % ESF                           question is medicinal, but that in those Member
     funding limit.                                                              States where it has hitherto been regarded as a
                                                                                foodstuff it should continue to be a foodstuff, that
2.   It is submitted that the failure of the Commission to                       raises problems for the referring Chamber such as
     accept the Applicant's explanations in this case amounts                    those underlying the questions in B VI, in conjunc-
     to a breach of a fundamental rule of law relating to the                    tion with those in B III. Reference is made to those
     operation of the structural funds and the principles iden-                  questions and the observations thereon and an
     tified by the Commission in the context of the Decision.                    answer is requested.
3.   It is submitted that the approach adopted by the Commis-
     sion is out of all proportion to the result intended to be             4.   If ‘Lactobact omni FOS’ is a foodstuff (food supple-
     achieved having regard to the ongoing efficacy of the                       ment), is it then a novel food within the meaning of
     projects in issue and the nature of the project beneficiary.                Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parlia-
     Such an approach effectively amounts to the imposition                      ment and of the Council of 27 January 1997
     of a penalty in circumstances where the beneficiary is                      concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients
     innocent of any wrongdoing.                                                 (OJ 1997 L43, p. 1, ‘the Novel Foods Regulation’)?
                                                                                What is the relationship between the various legal
4.   Finally, it is submitted that the Commission's approach                     bases?
     fails to respect the principles of legal certainty and
     legitimate expectations.
                                                                        B   In the event that — as has been the case hitherto — the
                                                                            questions (as to classification) posed in section A above
                                                                            are to be answered not by the Court of Justice but by the
                                                                            national courts, guidance is none the less sought on how
                                                                            correctly to resolve the questions in A 2 from a Commu-
                                                                            nity law standpoint, in so far as Community law is
                                                                            applicable.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberverwal-
tungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen by order
of that Court of 7 May 2003 in the administrative                           In addition the following questions arise:
proceedings between HLH Warenvertriebs GmbH and
Bundesrepublik Deutschland; Intervener: The representa-
tive of the public interest at the Oberverwaltungsgericht                   I    a)    Is the contested product to be classified
               für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen                                        according to Article 2, subparagraphs (1) and
                                                                                (2),   in    conjunction       with     Article   2,
                         (Case C-211/03)                                               subparagraph (3)(d), of Regulation (EC)
                                                                                No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and
                         (2003/C 200/14)                                               of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down
                                                                                the general principles and requirements of food
                                                                                law, establishing the European Food Safety
                                                                                Authority and laying down procedures in
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                 matters of food safety (OJ 2002 L31, p. 1, ‘the
European Communities by order of the Oberverwaltungsge-                                Basic Regulation’), or — once the period for
richt für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (Higher Administrative                          transposition expires on 31 July 2003 —
Court for the Land of Nordrhein-Westfalen) of 7 May 2003,                              according to Directive 2002/46/EC of the
received at the Court Registry on 15 May 2003, for a preli-                            European Parliament and of the Council of
minary ruling in the administrative proceedings between HLH                            10 June 2002 on the approximation of the
Warenvertriebs GmbH and Bundesrepublik Deutschland; Inter-                             laws of the Member States relating to food
vener: The representative of the public interest at the Oberver-                       supplements (OJ 2002 L 183, p. 51, ‘the Food
waltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (Higher                               Supplements Directive’), and if so according to
Administrative Court for the Land of Nordrhein-Westfalen) on                           which parts of the directive?
the following questions:
A.   1.    Is the contested product                                              b)    If Article 2, subparagraphs (1) and (2), in
                                                                                conjunction with Article 2, subparagraph (3)(d),
           ‘Lactobact omni FOS’                                                        of the Basic Regulation applies, the following
                                                                                question arises: is it the case that it is no longer
           a foodstuff (perhaps in the form of a food supple-                          the product's main (objective) purpose that is
           ment) or a medicinal product? Is this finding binding                       the decisive factor, but rather that a product
           on all the Member States?                                                   which meets the criteria for both a food and a
                                                                                medicine is, legally speaking, always — and
     2.    Is it relevant when classifying the product that,                           only — a medicinal product? How material for
           according to the directions for use, it is intended to                      these purposes is the type of product and how
           be dissolved in water or in yoghurt? Or is the                              material the individual product?


title: Removal from the register of C-121/97

text:
10. 1. 98             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 7/13
          Removal from the register of C-92/97 (1)                  removal from the register of Case C-121/97: Commission
                          (98/C 7/40)                               of the European Communities v. Federal Republic of
                                                                    Germany.
By order of 11 November 1997, the President of the
Court of Justice of the European Communities has                    (1) OJ C 166, 31. 5. 1997.
ordered the removal from the register of Case C-92/97:
Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of
Belgium.
(1) OJ C 108, 5. 4. 1997.
                                                                              Removal from the register of C-154/97 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 7/43)
                                                                    By order of 8 October 1997, the President of the Court of
          Removal from the register of C-96/97 ( ) 1                Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                    removal from the register of Case C-154/97: Commission
                          (98/C 7/41)
                                                                    of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic.
By order of 7 October 1997, the President of the Court of           (1) OJ C 212, 12. 7. 1997.
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-96/97: Commission of
the European Communities v. French Republic.
(1) OJ C 131, 26. 4. 1997.
                                                                              Removal from the register of C-201/97 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 7/44)
                                                                    By order of 21 October 1997, the President of the Court
         Removal from the register of C-121/97 (1)                  of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
                          (98/C 7/42)                               removal from the register of Case C-201/97: Commission
                                                                    of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic.
By order of 23 September 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the              (1) OJ C 212, 12. 7. 1997.
                                                   COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                           Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30, rue de Cessange, against
                                                                    Council of the European Union (Agents: Martin Bauer and
                      of 21 October 1997                            TheÂreÁse Blanchet) Ð application for the annulment of a
                                                                    decision not to promote Ð the Court of First Instance
in Case T-168/96: Catherine Patronis v. Council of the
                                                                    (Third Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President,
                      European Union (1)
                                                                    C. P. BrieÈt and A. Potocki, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave
                                                                    a judgment on 21 October 1997, the operative part of
(Officials Ð Decision not to promote Ð Consideration of
                                                                    which is as follows:
comparative merits Ð Leave on grounds of sickness and
accident Ð Account taken of the work actually done
                 during the reference period)
                          (98/C 7/45)                               1. The application is dismissed.
                                                                    2. Each party shall bear its own costs.
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                    (1) OJ C 388, 21. 12. 1996.
In Case T-168/96: Catherine Patronis, represented by Jean-
NoeÈl Louis, Thierry Demaseur and Ariane Tornel, of the
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at


title: Case T-506/12 P: Judgment of the General Court of 3 December 2015 — Cuallado Martorell v Commission (Appeal — Civil Service — Officials — Recruitment — Open competition to draw up a reserve list of lawyer-linguists with Spanish as their main language — Decision of the jury confirming failure to pass the written tests and non-admittance to the oral test — Article 90(2) of the Statute — Admissibility of the action at first instance — Duty to state reasons — Refusal to send the marked written tests to the appellant — Access to documents)

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/30

         Judgment of the General Court of 3 December 2015 — Cuallado Martorell v Commission
   (Case T-506/12 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil Service - Officials - Recruitment - Open competition to draw up a reserve list of lawyer-linguists with Spanish as their main language - Decision of the jury confirming failure to pass the written tests and non-admittance to the oral test - Article 90(2) of the Statute - Admissibility of the action at first instance - Duty to state reasons - Refusal to send the marked written tests to the appellant - Access to documents))
   (2016/C 027/33)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Eva Cuallado Martorell (Valencia, Spain) (represented by: C. Pinto Cañón, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and G. Gattinara, acting as agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Appeal Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 18 September 2012 in Cuallado Martorell v Commission (F-96/09, ECRFP, EU:F:2012:129) and seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the Civil Service Appeal Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 18 September 2012 in Cuallado Martorell v Commission (F-96/09, ECRFP, EU:F:2012:129) inasmuch as it declares the action to be inadmissible in seeking the annulment of the decision refusing admission to the oral test and, consequently, the reserve list;

               2.

               Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;

               3.

               Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;

               4.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.


title: Case C-504/08: Action brought on 20 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               10.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/17

         Action brought on 20 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-504/08)
   (2009/C 6/30)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

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

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2006/70/EC (1) of 1 August 2006 laying down implementing measures for Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the definition of politically exposed person and the technical criteria for simplified customer due diligence procedures and for exemption on grounds of a financial activity conducted on an occasional or very limited basis or, in any event, by failing to notify those provisions to the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5 thereof;

               —

               order Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for bringing national law into conformity with Directive 2006/70/EC expired on 15 December 2007.

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 214, p. 29.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 19 February 1998 in Case C-212/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratif, Saint-Denis de la Réunion): Paul Chevassus-Marche v. Conseil Régional de la Réunion ('Dock dues' (octroi de mer) - Fiscal rules applicable to the French overseas departments - Decision 89/688/EEC - Charges having an effect equivalent to a customs duty - Internal taxation)

text:
C 113/4                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      11.4.98
the purpose of applying that rule against overlapping, of               laws of the Member States relating to the application of
the benefits in question.                                               the principle of equal pay for men and women.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 269, 14.9.1996.
(1) OJ C 26, 25.1.1997.                                                 (2) OJ L 45, 19.2.1975, p. 19.
(2) Official Journal English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416.         (3) OJ L 39, 14.2.1976, p. 40.
(3) OJ L 230, 22.8.1983, p. 6.
(4) OJ L 136, 19.5.1992, p. 7.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 19 February 1998
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                   in Case C-212/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                        the Tribunal Administratif, Saint-Denis de la ReÂunion):
                      of 17 February 1998                               Paul Chevassus-Marche v. Conseil ReÂgional de la
                                                                                ReÂunion (1)
in Case C-249/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Industrial Tribunal, Southampton): Lisa Jacqueline                  (Dock dues' (octroi de mer) Ð Fiscal rules applicable to
               Grant v. South-West Trains Ltd (1)                       the French overseas departments Ð Decision 89/688/EEC
                                                                        Ð Charges having an effect equivalent to a customs duty
(Equal treatment of men and women Ð Refusal of travel                                        Ð Internal taxation)
          concessions to cohabitees of the same sex)
                                                                                (98/C 113/10)
                          (98/C 113/09)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                 (Language of the case: English)                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-249/96: reference to the Court pursuant to                    In Case C-212/96: reference to the Court pursuant to
Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Industrial Tribunal,              Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal
Southampton, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                Administratif (Administrative Court), Saint-Denis de la
pending before that tribunal between Lisa Jacqueline                    ReÂunion, France, for a preliminary ruling in the
Grant and South-West Trains Ltd Ð on the interpretation                 proceedings pending before that court between Paul
of Article 119 of the EC Treaty, Council Directive 75/117/              Chevassus-Marche and Conseil ReÂgional de la ReÂunion Ð
EEC of 10 February 1975 on the approximation of the                     on the interpretation of Articles 9, 12 and 13 and the
laws of the Member States relating to the application of                second paragraph of Article 95 of the EC Treaty, and on
the principle of equal pay for men and women (2), and                   the interpretation and validity of Council Decision 89/688/
Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the                  EEC of 22 December 1989 concerning the dock dues
implementation of the principle of equal treatment for                  (octroi de mer) in the French overseas departments (2) Ð
men and women as regards access to employment,                          the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias,
vocational training and promotion, and working                          President, C. Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet
conditions (3), the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez                 (Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho
Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm, M.                       de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, D. A. O.
Wathelet (Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini, J. C.                 Edward (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann
Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray,                    and L. Sevón, Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate-General; D.
D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), G.                      Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the
Hirsch, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; M. B. Elmer,                      Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 February 1998, in
Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the                    which it has ruled:
Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 February 1998, in
which it has ruled:                                                     Consideration of Council Decision 89/688/EEC of
                                                                        22 December 1989 concerning the dock dues in the
                                                                        French overseas departments, in so far as it authorises a
                                                                        system of exemptions from the charge termed octroi de
The refusal by an employer to allow travel concessions to               mer subject to strict conditions which it lays down, has
the person of the same sex with whom a worker has a                     disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect its validity.
stable relationship, where such concessions are allowed to
a worker's spouse or to the person of the opposite sex
with whom a worker has a stable relationship outside                    (1) OJ C 269, 14.9.1996.
                                                                        (2) OJ L 399, 30.12.1989, p. 46.
marriage, does not constitute discrimination prohibited by
Article 119 of the EC Treaty or Council Directive 75/117/
EEC of 10 February 1975 on the approximation of the


title: Case C-415/15 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 March 2017 — Stichting Woonpunt, Woningstichting Haag Wonen, Stichting Woonbedrijf SWS.Hhvl v European Commission, Kingdom of Belgium, Vereniging van Institutionele Beleggers in Vastgoed, Nederland (IVBN) (Appeal — State aid — Existing aid — Article 108(1) TFEU — Aid schemes in favour of social housing corporations — Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Articles 17, 18 and 19 — Assessment by the Commission of the compatibility with the internal market of an existing aid scheme — Proposal of appropriate measures — Commitments given by the national authorities in order to comply with EU law — Compatibility decision — Scope of judicial review — Legal effects)

text:
               15.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/7

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 March 2017 — Stichting Woonpunt, Woningstichting Haag Wonen, Stichting Woonbedrijf SWS.Hhvl v European Commission, Kingdom of Belgium, Vereniging van Institutionele Beleggers in Vastgoed, Nederland (IVBN)
   (Case C-415/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - State aid - Existing aid - Article 108(1) TFEU - Aid schemes in favour of social housing corporations - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Articles 17, 18 and 19 - Assessment by the Commission of the compatibility with the internal market of an existing aid scheme - Proposal of appropriate measures - Commitments given by the national authorities in order to comply with EU law - Compatibility decision - Scope of judicial review - Legal effects))
   (2017/C 151/09)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Appellants: Stichting Woonpunt, Woningstichting Haag Wonen, Stichting Woonbedrijf SWS.Hhvl (represented by: L. Hancher, E. Besselink and P. Glazener, advocaten)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: S. Noë and P.J. Loewenthal, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Belgium, Vereniging van Institutionele Beleggers in Vastgoed, Nederland (IVBN) (represented by: M. Meulenbelt, advocaat)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 12 May 2015, Stichting Woonpunt and Others v Commission (T-203/10 RENV, not published, EU:T:2015:286);

               2.

               Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

               3.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.


title: Case C-211/00 P: Appeal brought on 26 May 2000 by Ciments Français S.A. against the judgment delivered on 15 March 2000 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) in Case T-39/95 Ciments Français S.A. v Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 247/8                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       26.8.2000
(d) The Court of First Instance’s judgment is also vitiated by                   (iii) order the Commission to pay the costs.
      a lack of reasoning and failure to respond to arguments
      of the Appellant.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
(1) OJ C 101 of 22.4.1995, pp 10-20; C 119 of 13.5.1995, pp 13-            —     Error of law inasmuch as the judgment under appeal
    26; C 137 of 3.6.1995, pp 23-28, 33 and 34, and C 208 of                     finds that the consultation with the Advisory Committee
    12.8.1995, pp 26 and 27.                                                     on Restrictive Practices and Abuses of Dominant Pos-
(2) Commission Decision 94/815/EC of 30 November 1994 relating
    to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty (Cases IV/33.126
                                                                                itions was properly conducted: the case-law of the Court
    and 33.322 — Cement) (OJ 1994 L 343 of 30.12.1994, p. 1).                    of Justice requires that the Advisory Committee should
                                                                                be consulted at least orally on the amount of the fines
                                                                                envisaged.
                                                                           —     Manifest error of assessment in so far as the judgment
                                                                                under appeal finds that Compagnie des Ciments Belges
                                                                                was under the control of Ciments Français at the time of
                                                                                the infringement and inasmuch as the turnover of that
                                                                                subsidiary was not excluded from the basis of assessment
                                                                                on which the fine imposed on Ciments Français was
                                                                                calculated.
Appeal brought on 26 May 2000 by Ciments Français S.A.                     —     Infringement of the principle of proportionality inasmuch
against the judgment delivered on 15 March 2000 by the                           as the judgment under appeal does not reduce the amount
Court of First Instance of the European Communities                              of the fine imposed on Ciments Français in proportion to
(Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) in Case T-39/95                           the complaints against Ciments Français which were
Ciments Français S.A. v Commission of the European                               annulled by the Court of First Instance.
                           Communities
                                                                           —     Error of law inasmuch as the judgment under appeal
                                                                                states that the Commission was entitled to base itself on
                        (Case C-211/00 P)                                        the turnover for 1992 for the purpose of calculating the
                                                                                fine imposed on Ciments Français: under Article 15(2) of
                         (2000/C 247/11)                                         Regulation No 17/62, the turnover which is to serve as
                                                                                the basis for calculation of the fine is in principle that of
                                                                                the business year preceding adoption of the decision. The
An appeal has been brought before the Court of Justice of the                    Court of First Instance departed from that interpretation
European Communities on 26 May 2000 by Ciments Français                          and failed to give reasons for so doing.
S.A., represented by Antoine Winckler, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger & Hoss,
15 Côte d’Eich, against the judgment delivered on 15 March
2000 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communi-
ties (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) in Case
T-39/95 Ciments Français S.A. v Commission of the European
Communities.
                                                                           Appeal brought on 30 May 2000 by Italcementi SpA
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                against the judgment delivered on 15 March 2000 by the
                                                                           Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                           (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) in Joined Cases
—     Annul in part, pursuant to Article 225 EC and Article 54             T-25/95, T-26/95, T-30/95, T-31/95, T-32/95, T-34/95,
      of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice, the judgment              T-35/95, T-36/95, T-37/95, T-38/95, T-39/95, T-42/95,
      delivered on 15 March 2000 by the Court of First Instance            T-43/95, T-44/95, T-45/95, T-46/95, T-48/95, T-50/95,
      in Case T-39/95 Ciments Français S.A. v Commission of                T-51/95, T-52/95, T-53/95, T-54/95, T-55/95, T-56/95,
      the European Communities;                                            T-57/95, T-58/95, T-59/95, T-60/95, T-61/95, T-62/95,
                                                                           T-63/95, T-64/95, T-65/95, T-68/95, T-69/95, T-70/95,
—     grant the forms of order sought by Ciments Français at               T-71/95, T-87/95, T-88/95, T-103/95 and T-104/95
      first instance, namely:                                              between Cimenteries CBR SA and Others and the Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities
      (i)    annul, pursuant to Article 230 EC, the Commission
             decision of 30 November 1994 relating to a pro-                                       (Case C-213/00 P)
             ceeding under [Article 81 EC] in Cases IV/33.126
             and 33.322;
                                                                                (2000/C 247/12)
      (ii) in the alternative, reduce, pursuant to Article 229
             EC and Article 17 of Regulation No 17/62, the fine            An appeal against the judgment delivered on 15 March by the
             imposed on Ciments Français; and                              Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth


title: Case C-148/00: Action brought on 18 April 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
C 176/14                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    24.6.2000
— By having ceased, with effect from the 1995 bathing                         (b) Council Directive 97/76/EC of 16 December 1997 (2)
     season, measuring the ‘total coliform’ parameter, despite it                  amending Directive 77/99/EEC and Directive
     still being part of the applicable Community legislation                      72/462/EEC with regard to the rules applicable to
     concerning bathing water quality, the French authorities                      minced meat, meat preparations and certain other
     have infringed a clear obligation incumbent upon them                         products of animal origin;
     under Articles 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the directive. The technical
     arguments deployed by the said authorities to justify
     their choice cannot justify, by themselves, the unilateral               (c) Commission Directive 98/51/EC of 9 July 1998 (3)
     abandonment of a clear and incontestable obligation under                     laying down certain measures for implementing
     Community law. Article 7 of the directive offers Member                       Council Directive 95/69/EC laying down the con-
     States the possibility of taking stricter measures than those                 ditions and arrangements for approving and registering
     provided for; measuring additional parameters would thus                      certain establishments and intermediaries operating in
     be in conformity with the requirements of the directive.                      the animal feed sector;
     The same cannot be said for the replacement of a
     mandatory with a non-mandatory parameter or for the                      and by failing to communicate such provisions, it has
     abandonment of one of the mandatory parameters.                          failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives and
                                                                              under the Treaty.
     Finally, the Commission points out that the unilateral
     abandonment of a parameter also affects the results
     included in the annual report on the bathing waters of the           2. order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
     European Union by removing one factor for comparison.
     That situation moreover is unhelpful and confuses the
     person in the street as well as the media which report on
     water quality on the basis of that source.                           Pleas in law and main arguments
(1) Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 concerning            Article 189 of the EC Treaty (now Article 249 EC), under
    the quality of bathing water (OJ 1976 L 31, p. 1).                    which a directive is binding, as to the result to be achieved,
                                                                          upon the Member State to which it is addressed, entails an
                                                                          obligation on Member States to adhere to the time-limits for
                                                                          transposition laid down by a directive. Those time-limits
                                                                          expired without the Italian Republic’s having enacted the
                                                                          provisions necessary to comply with the directives cited by the
                                                                          Commission in its application.
Action brought on 18 April 2000 by the Commission of
  the European Communities against the Italian Republic                   (1) OJ 1997 L 184, p. 33.
                                                                          (2) OJ 1998 L 10, p. 25.
                                                                          (3) OJ 1998 L 208, p. 43.
                          (Case C-148/00)
                          (2000/C 176/24)
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 18 April
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Stefania Dragone and Francesco P. Ruggeri
Laderchi, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la            Action brought on 19 April 2000 by the Commission of
Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                            the European Communities against the French Republic
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                        (Case C-152/00)
1. declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
                                                                                (2000/C 176/25)
     administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     (a) Council Directive 97/41/EC of 25 June 1997 (1)                   An action against the French Republic was brought before the
          amending Directives 76/895/EEC, 86/362/EEC,                     Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 April
          86/363/EEC and 90/642/EEC relating to the fixing of             2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
          maximum levels for pesticide residues in and on,                represented by Léna Ström and Jean-Francis Pasuier, Legal
          respectively, fruit and vegetables, cereals, foodstuffs of      Advisers, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
          animal origin, and certain products of plant origin,            Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
          including fruit and vegetables;                                 Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.


title: Case T-202/01: Order of the Court of First Instance of 22 June 2006 — Free Trade Foods v Commission (Action for annulment — Action for damages — Sugar qualifying as EC/OCT originating products — Safeguard measure — Applicant's failure to proceed — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/41

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 22 June 2006 — Free Trade Foods v Commission
   (Case T-202/01) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Action for damages - Sugar qualifying as EC/OCT originating products - Safeguard measure - Applicant's failure to proceed - No need to adjudicate)
   (2006/C 224/89)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Free Trade Foods NV (Curaçao, Netherlands Antilles) (represented by: M. Slotboom and N. Helder, lawyers, initially and then by M. Slotboom)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: T. van Rijn, Agent)

      Party intervening in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, Agent)
   Re:
   First, an application for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1325/2001 of 29 June 2001 providing for the continued application of safeguard measures with regard to imports of sugar sector products with EC/OCT originating status from the overseas countries and territories for the period 1 July to 1 December 2001 (OJ 2001 L 177, p. 57) and, second, an application for compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant following the adoption of the contested regulation.
   Operative part of the order
   The Court hereby orders:

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on this action.

               2.

               The applicant shall bear its own costs and pay those of the defendant. The Kingdom of Spain must bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 303, 27.10.2001.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 2 July 2003 in Case T-99/98: Hameico Stuttgart GmbH and Others v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Actions for damages — Common organisation of the markets — Bananas — Import scheme — Undertakings in the former GDR)

text:
C 213/26               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                             6.9.2003
                                                       COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 17 June 2003
                           of 2 July 2003
                                                                          in Case T-52/00: Coe Clerici Logistics SpA v Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities ( 1)
in Case T-99/98: Hameico Stuttgart GmbH and Others v
Council of the European Union and Commission of the                       (Competition — Complaint — Articles 82 EC and 86 EC —
                   European Communities ( 1)                                                Admissibility — Port services)
                                                                                (2003/C 213/49)
(Actions for damages — Common organisation of the
markets — Bananas — Import scheme — Undertakings in                                            (Language of the case: Italian)
                         the former GDR)
                                                                          In Case T-52/00, Coe Clerici Logistics SpA, established in
                          (2003/C 213/48)
                                                                          Trieste (Italy), represented by G. Conte, G.M. Giacomini and
                                                                          E. Minozzi, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
                   (Language of the case: German)                         v Commission of the European Communities (Agents: R. Lyal
                                                                          and L. Pignataro), supported by Autorità Portuale di Ancona,
                                                                          represented by S. Zunarelli, C. Perrella and P. Manzini, lawyers:
                                                                          Application for annulment of the Commission’s letter of
                                                                          20 December 1999 (D 17482) refusing to act on the
In Case T-99/98, Hameico Stuttgart GmbH, formerly A & B                   applicant’s complaint based on Articles 82 EC and 86 EC,
Fruchthandel GmbH, established in Stuttgart (Germany),                    the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
Amhof Frucht GmbH, established in Schwabhausen                            J.D. Cooke, President, R. García-Valdecasas and P. Lindh,
(Germany), Hameico Dortmund GmbH, formerly Dessau-                        Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the
Bremer Frucht GmbH, established in Dortmund (Germany),                    Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 June 2003, in which it:
Hameico Fruchthandelsgesellschaft mbH, formerly Bremen-
Rostocker-Frucht GmbH, established in Rostock (Germany),                  1.     Dismisses the application;
Leipzig-Bremer Frucht GmbH, established in Leipzig (Ger-
many), represented by G. Schohe, lawyer, with an address for              2.     Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay those
service in Luxembourg, v Council of the European Union                           incurred by the Commission;
(Agents: J.-P. Hix and A. Tanca), Commission of the European
                                                                          3.     Orders the Autorità Portuale di Ancona to bear its own costs.
Communities (Agents: K.-D. Borchardt and A. von Bogdandy),
supported by Kingdom of Spain (Agent: R. Silva de Lapuerta):
Application for compensation for the damage allegedly suf-                (1 ) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.
fered by the applicants as a result of the application of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 of 13 February 1993 on the
common organisation of the market in bananas (OJ 1993
L 47, p. 1) and of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1442/93
of 10 June 1993 laying down detailed rules for the application                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
of the arrangements for importing bananas into the Com-
munity (OJ 1993 L 142, p. 6), the Court of First Instance (First                                     of 9 July 2003
Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, N.J. Forwood
and H. Legal, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the                 in Case T-102/00 Vlaams Fonds voor de Sociale Integratie
Registrar, has given a judgment on 2 July 2003, in which it:              van Personen met een Handicap v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
1.     Dismisses the application;
                                                                          (Social policy — European Social Fund — Reduction of
                                                                          financial assistance — Right to a fair hearing — Article 24
2.     Orders the applicants to bear their own costs in addition to        of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 — Statement of reasons)
       those incurred by the Council and the Commission. The
       Kingdom of Spain is to bear its own costs.                                                   (2003/C 213/50)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
( 1) OJ C 312 of 10.10.1998.
                                                                          In Case T-102/00, Vlaams Fonds voor de Sociale Integratie
                                                                          van Personen met een Handicap, established in Brussels


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 30 September 1998 in Case T-121/97: Richie Ryan v. Court of Auditors of the European Communities (Action for annulment - System of payment for the members of the Court of Auditors - Departure from office - Pension - No increase - Infringement of the basic regulation - Statement of reasons - Legitimate expectations - Principle of non-discrimination)

text:
5.12.98              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                C 378/17
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            the Chambers of Jacques Schroeder of Faltz et AssocieÂs, 6,
                    of 30 September 1998                             Rue Heine, against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities (Agents: Ana Maria Alves Vieira and Knut
in Case T-121/97: Richie Ryan v. Court of Auditors of the            Simonsson) Ð application for taxation of costs made
                  European Communities (1)                           following the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
(Action for annulment Ð System of payment for the                    11 July 1996 in Case T-271/94 Branco v. Commission
members of the Court of Auditors Ð Departure from                    [1996] ECR II-749 Ð the Court of First Instance (Fifth
office Ð Pension Ð No increase Ð Infringement of the                 Chamber), composed of: J. Azizi, President, R. García-
basic regulation Ð Statement of reasons Ð Legitimate                 Valdecasas and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
      expectations Ð Principle of non-discrimination)                made an order on 17 September 1998, the operative part
                                                                     of which is as follows:
                         (98/C 378/30)
               (Language of the case: French)                        The total amount of the recoverable costs in Case T-271/
                                                                     94 is fixed at PTE 1 316 660, including VAT.
In Case T-121/97: Richie Ryan, former member of the
Court of Auditors of the European Communities, resident              (1) OJ C 288, 15.10.1994.
in Dublin, represented by Georges Vandersanden, of the
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de
Cessange, against the Court of Auditors of the European
Communities (Agents: Jean-Marie Stenier, Jan Inghelram
and Paolo Giusta), supported by the Council of the
European Union (Agents: Jean-Paul JacqueÂ and TheÂreÁse
                                                                          ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Blanchet) Ð application for the annulment of the decision
of the Court of Auditors of 20 February 1997 setting the                                 of 15 September 1998
rate of the applicant's pension with effect from 1 March
                                                                      in Case T-109/97: Molkerei Groûbraunshain GmbH and
1997 Ð the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber),
                                                                          Bene Nahrungsmittel GmbH v. Commission of the
composed of: J. Azizi, President, R. García-Valdecasas and
                                                                                European Communities (1)
M. Jaeger, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 September                  (Community protection of designations of origin Ð
1998, in which it:                                                   Registration under a Commission Regulation of a
                                                                     designation for a geographical area considered by the
1. Annuls the decision of the Court of Auditors of                   applicants to be too large Ð Action for annulment Ð
    20 February 1997 setting the rate of the applicant's                                     Inadmissibility)
    pension;
                                                                                (98/C 378/32)
2. Orders the Court of Auditors to pay the costs;
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
3. Orders the Council to bear its own costs.
(1) OJ C 199, 28.6.1997.
                                                                     In Case T-109/97: Molkerei Groûbraunshain GmbH and
                                                                     Bene Nahrungsmittel GmbH, established in Altenburg
                                                                     (Germany), represented by Michael Loschelder and Thilo
                                                                     Klingbeil, lawyers, Cologne, with an address for service in
                                                                     Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch, 11 Rue
                                                                     Goethe, supported by Freistaat Thüringen, represented by
                                                                     Georg M. Berrisch, lawyer, Hamburg, with an address for
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Guy Harles,
                       (Fifth Chamber)                               8Ð10 Rue Mathias Hardt, against Commission of the
                                                                     European Communities (Agents: JoseÂ-Luis Iglesias
                    of 17 September 1998                             Buhigues, Ulrich Wölker and Bertrand Wägenbaur),
       in Case T-271/94 (92): EugeÂnio Branco Lda v.                 supported by Molkerei und Weichkäserei K.-H.
        Commission of the European Communities (1)                   Zimmermann         GmbH,      established  in   Falkenhain
                                                                     (Germany), represented by Philipp Lotze and Stefan Lehr,
                      (Taxation of costs)                            of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
                         (98/C 378/31)                               Luxembourg at the Chambers of ReneÂ Foltz, 6 Rue
                                                                     Heinrich Heine, Ð application for annulment of
                                                                     Commission Regulation (EC) No 123/97 of 23 January
             (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                                                                     1997 supplementing the Annex to Commission Regulation
                                                                     (EC) No 1107/96 on the registration of geographical
In Case T-271/94 (92): EugeÂnio Branco Lda, established in           indications and designations of origin under the procedure
Lisbon, represented by Bolota Belchior, of the Vila Nova             laid down in Article 17 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92
de Gaia Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at            (OJ L 22, 24.1.1997, p. 19), in so far as it registers the