title: Appeal brought on 2 November 1998 by Hans Gevaert against the order made on 19 August 1998 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-160/97 between Hans Gevaert and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-389/98 P)

text:
C 397/24              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       19.12.98
the EC Treaty to adopt the measures needed to transpose                           Ð in so far as may be necessary, annul the
directives into national law before the expiry of the period                          decision adopted by the Commission on
laid down for that purpose and to communicate those                                   3 February 1997 expressly rejecting the
measures immediately to the Commission. That period                                   appellant's complaint;
expired on 31 December 1996 without the Hellenic
Republic having communicated to the Commission
                                                                            (c) order the defendant to pay all the costs of both
provisions transposing the directive at issue into national
                                                                                sets of proceedings.
law.
(1) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 34.                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                       Ð Erroneous legal characterisation of the appellant's
                                                                            request, giving rise to incorrect legal consequences:
                                                                            the appellant's request, although based on
                                                                            Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations of officials, was
                                                                            intended to secure an assessment of his qualifications
Appeal brought on 2 November 1998 by Hans Gevaert
                                                                            with a view to a possible revision of his current
against the order made on 19 August 1998 by the First
                                                                            classification, not of his initial classification, the latter
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                            being neither directly nor indirectly in issue.
Communities in Case T-160/97 between Hans Gevaert
    and the Commission of the European Communities
                       (Case C-389/98 P)                               Ð (In the alternative) erroneous legal characterisation of
                                                                            the decision of 7 February 1996 (Administrative
                         (98/C 397/42)                                      Notices of 27.3.1996) by which the Commission
                                                                            amended its decision concerning the criteria
                                                                            applicable to appointment in grade and classification
An appeal against the order made on 19 August 1998 by                       in step upon recruitment; breach of the principle of
the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                     equality of treatment and infringement of Article 5(3)
European Communities in Case T-160/97 between Hans                          of the Staff Regulations of officials: to reserve the
Gevaert and the Commission of the European                                  benefit of the Commission's decision of 7 February
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of                      1996 solely to officials appointed after it entered into
the European Communities on 2 November 1998 by Hans                         force, notwithstanding that those officials would in
Gevaert, represented by Nicolas LhoeÈst, of the Brussels                    the future be working in the same institution
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                       alongside other officials classified in accordance with
Offices of the Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de                             earlier (less favourable) criteria, would be wholly
Cessange.                                                                   contrary to the principle of euqality of treatment.
The appellant claims that the Court should:                            Ð Contradictory statements in the grounds of the
                                                                            judgment.
1.   declare the appeal admissible and well founded;                   (1) Order of 19.8.1998 in Case T-160/97 (OJ C 327, 24.10.1998,
                                                                           p. 24).
2.   consequently:
     (a) set aside the order made (1);
     (b) itself determine the proceedings and, allowing the            Action brought on 4 November 1998 by the Commission
          appellant's initial application:                             of the European Communities against the Hellenic
                                                                                Republic
          Ð rule that the appellant's request for                                              (Case C-391/98)
              consideration to be given to the possible
              application of Article 31(2) of the Staff                                         (98/C 397/43)
              Regulations,      with    a      view     to    his
              reclassification in grade with effect from
              5 October 1995, is admissible;                           An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought
                                                                       before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
          Ð consequently,        annul     the    Commission's         on 4 November 1998 by the Commission of the European
              decision of 26 August 1996 rejecting the                 Communities, represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, of
              appellant's request for an examination of the            its Legal Service, with an address for service in
              possible application of Article 31(2) of the             Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of
              Staff Regulations;                                       its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.


title: Case C-185/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče — Slovenia) — Marjan Kostanjevec v F&S Leasing GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 6(3) — Definition of ‘counterclaim’ — Claim based on unjust enrichment — Payment of a sum due under a decision that has been set aside — Temporal application)

text:
               12.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/4

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče — Slovenia) — Marjan Kostanjevec v F&S Leasing GmbH
   (Case C-185/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 6(3) - Definition of ‘counterclaim’ - Claim based on unjust enrichment - Payment of a sum due under a decision that has been set aside - Temporal application))
   (2016/C 462/05)
   Language of the case: Slovene

      Referring court

   Vrhovno sodišče

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Marjan Kostanjevec

      Defendant: F&S Leasing GmbH

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 6(3) 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 the court designated by that provision as regards counterclaims has jurisdiction to hear a counterclaim seeking the reimbursement on the ground of unjust enrichment of a sum corresponding to the amount agreed in an extrajudicial settlement, where that claim is brought in fresh legal proceedings between the same parties, following the setting aside of the judgment delivered in the original proceedings between them, the enforcement of which gave rise to the extrajudicial settlement.

      (1)  OJ C 254, 3.8.2015.


title: Case C-205/00 P: Appeal brought on 24 May 2000 by Irish Cement Ltd 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 T-25/95, T-26/95, T-30/95, T-31/95, T-32/95, T-34/95, T-35/95, T-36/95, T-37/95, T-38/95, T-39/95, T-42/95, T-43/95, T-44/95, T-45/95, T-46/95, T-48/95, T-50/95, T-51/95, T-52/95, T-53/95, T-54/95, T-55/95, T-56/95, 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, T-71/95, T-87/95, T-88/95, T-103/95 and T-104/95 between Cimenteries CBR SA and others and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
26.8.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 247/7
(ii) The Court of First Instance unjustifiably finds Aalborg               The Appellant claims that the Court should:
      Portland A/S responsible for the infringements set out in
      Article 4(1) (establishment of the ETF) and Article 4(3)(a)
      (concerted practice designed to withdraw Calcestruzzi as             (a)   set aside or annul the judgment of the Court of First
      a customer from the Greek producers, in particular Titan)                  Instance in so far as it upholds the Decision of the
      of the Decision, alternatively in so far as responsibility                 Commission (2) in respect of Irish Cement Ltd;
      for this is extended beyond 9 September 1986.
                                                                           (b) set aside or annul part of the judgment of the Court of
                                                                                First Instance in so far as it upholds the Decision of the
(1) OJ C 101 of 22.4.1995, pp 10-20; C 119 of 13.5.1995, pp 13-                  Commission in respect of Irish Cement Ltd;
    26; C 137 of 3.6.1995, pp 23-28, 33 and 34, and C 208 of
    12.8.1995, pp 26 and 27.
(2) Commission Decision 94/815/EC of 30 November 1994 relating             (c)   in lieu thereof:
    to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty (Cases IV/33.126
    and 33.322 — Cement) (OJ 1994 L 343 of 30.12.1994, p. 1).
(3) First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty,              (i)   declare that the Decision of the Commission is void;
    OJ English Special Edition 1959-1962, p. 87.
(4) Regulation No 2988/74 of 26 November 1974 concerning limi-
    tation periods in proceedings and the enforcement of sanctions               (ii) make an order cancelling or, in the alternative,
    under the rules of the European Economic Community relating to                     reducing the fine imposed upon the Appellant;
    transport and competition.
                                                                                (iii) make an order awarding the Appellant its costs
                                                                                against the Commission.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           Prior to the oral procedure the Court of First Instance ordered
Appeal brought on 24 May 2000 by Irish Cement Ltd                          the Commission to comply with two measures of organisation
against the judgment delivered on 15 March 2000 by the                     of procedure, to enable the Appellants to have access to the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities                        documents which had not been disclosed to them during
(Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) in joined cases                     the administrative procedure. The Commission ultimately
T-25/95, T-26/95, T-30/95, T-31/95, T-32/95, T-34/95,                      complied with these measures.
T-35/95, T-36/95, T-37/95, T-38/95, T-39/95, T-42/95,
T-43/95, T-44/95, T-45/95, T-46/95, T-48/95, T-50/95,
T-51/95, T-52/95, T-53/95, T-54/95, T-55/95, T-56/95,                      The Appellant contends that:
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,
T-71/95, T-87/95, T-88/95, T-103/95 and T-104/95 (1)                       (a)   The Court of First Instance does not have competence to
between Cimenteries CBR SA and others and the Com-                               attempt to retrospectively repair the defective procedures
            mission of the European Communities                                  of the Commission and, furthermore, was not empowered
                                                                                to conclude that the outcome of the administrative
                                                                                procedure could not have been different if access to the
                         (Case C-205/00 P)
                                                                                file had been given at the appropriate time;
                          (2000/C 247/10)
                                                                           (b) By requiring submissions on how the documents made
                                                                                available might have affected the position of the Appellant
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 15 March by the                      and then adjudicating on those submissions the Court of
Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth                      First Instance committed a breach of procedure;
Chamber, Extended Composition) in joined cases T-25/95 etc.
between Cimenteries CBR SA and others and the Commission
of the European Communities, was brought before the Court                  (c)   The Court of First Instance made a serious error of
of Justice of the European Communities on 24 May 2000 by                         assessment when it found that the Appellants’ access to
Irish Cement Ltd, a company incorporated under Irish law,                        the investigation file was equal to that which they should
established in Dublin, represented by Paul Sreenan, SC, and                      have had during the administrative procedure. Arising
John Glackin, Solicitor, of Gerrard, Scallan & O’Brien, Solici-                  from this manifest error of assessment, the Court of First
tors, Dublin, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                   Instance’s subsequent approach to the assessment of the
Chambers of Kramer Associés & Clifford Chance, 6 rue                             effect of the infringements on the rights of the defence is
Heinrich Heine.                                                                  fundamentally flawed.
 ---pagebreak--- 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-394/07: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 April 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d’appello di Milano (Italy)) — Marco Gambazzi v DaimlerChrysler Canada Inc., CIBC Mellon Trust Company (Brussels Convention — Recognition and enforcement of judgments — Grounds for refusal — Infringement of public policy in the State in which enforcement is sought — Exclusion of the defendant from the proceedings before the court of the State of origin because of failure to comply with a court order)

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/9

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 April 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d’appello di Milano (Italy)) — Marco Gambazzi v DaimlerChrysler Canada Inc., CIBC Mellon Trust Company
   (Case C-394/07) (1)

   (Brussels Convention - Recognition and enforcement of judgments - Grounds for refusal - Infringement of public policy in the State in which enforcement is sought - Exclusion of the defendant from the proceedings before the court of the State of origin because of failure to comply with a court order)
   2009/C 141/13
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte d'appello di Milano

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Marco Gambazzi

      Defendants: DaimlerChrysler Canada Inc., CIBC Mellon Trust Company

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corte d'appello di Milano — Interpretation of Articles 26 and 27(1) of the Brussels Convention — Decision whose recognition is contrary to public policy in the State in which enforcement is sought — Decision preventing one of the parties from presenting a defence (‘debarment’) because of failure to comply with a court order

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 27(1) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic, by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic, and by the Convention of 29 November 1996 on the Accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, is to be interpreted as follows:
   the court of the State in which enforcement is sought may take into account, with regard to the public policy clause referred to in that article, the fact that the court of the State of origin ruled on the applicant’s claims without hearing the defendant, who entered appearance before it but who was excluded from the proceedings by order on the ground that he had not complied with the obligations imposed by an order made earlier in the same proceedings, if, following a comprehensive assessment of the proceedings and in the light of all the circumstances, it appears to it that that exclusion measure constituted a manifest and disproportionate infringement of the defendant’s right to be heard.

      (1)  OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.


               18.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/11

         Removal from the register of Case C-115/04 (1)

   (2004/C 314/29)
   By order of 23 September 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-115/04: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland.

      (1)  OJ C 94 of 17.4.2004.


title: Case T-69/10: Action brought on 18 February 2010 — IRO v Commission

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/61

         Action brought on 18 February 2010 — IRO v Commission
   (Case T-69/10)
   2010/C 100/90
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Industrie Riunite Odolesi SpA (IRO) (Brescia, Italy) (represented by: A. Giardina, lawyer, P. Tomassi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision C(2009) 7492 final of 30 September 2009 (‘the contested decision’);

               —

               In the alternative, cancel or reduce the fine imposed by the contested decision;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Case T-55/10 SP v Commission.
   In particular, the applicant alleges:

               —

               Infringement of the law and misuse of powers, in so far as the Commission adopted the contested decision by which the applicant was penalised for participating in an alleged price-fixing cartel, without examining all the supporting documents because the annexes relating to the price tables were not included;

               —

               Infringement of the procedural rules laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, (1) in so far as, following the annulment by the Court of First Instance of Decision C(2002) 5087 final of 17 December 2002, the Commission adopted the contested decision without carrying out any procedural steps, such as sending a statement of objections to the parties and/or hearing the parties, or involving the national authorities, and accordingly the entire procedure followed by the Commission was incomplete, inconsistent and unlawful and the rights of the defence of the undertakings penalised were infringed;

               —

               Inadequate investigations and reasoning, in so far as the Commission did not correctly assess the information, which emerged during the investigation, concerning the size of the relevant market and the effects of the alleged cartel.

         In the alternative, the applicant claims that the Court should cancel or reduce the fine imposed by the contested decision.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).


title: Action brought on 23 September 1998 by Associazione Nazionale Bieticoltori, Consorzio Nazionale Bieticoltori and Associazione Bieticoltori Italiani against Council of the European Union (Case T-153/98)

text:
C 358/22              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 21.11.98
excludes Italy from the list of Community areas classified           Action brought on 23 September 1998 by Associazione
as being in deficit within the meaning of Regulation (EEC)           Nazionale Bieticoltori, Consorzio Nazionale Bieticoltori
No 1785/81, or the basic regulation for the sugar sector. It         and Associazione Bieticoltori Italiani against Council of
is claimed that in the light of the rationale and the                                     the European Union
objectives of regionalisation, it must be concluded that a                                  (Case T-153/98)
particular area of the Community is to be regarded as in
deficit' if its requirements have to be covered by sugar                                     (98/C 358/40)
imports. The economic data for Italian sugar imports and
exports for recent years, including those for the period                             (Language of the case: Italian)
prior to the adoption of the contested measures, show a
long-standing prevalence of imports over exports. It
                                                                     An action against the Council of the European Union was
follows that, by withholding regionalisation for the 1998/
                                                                     brought before the Court of First Instance on 23 September
99 marketing year for all the beet-growing areas of Italy,
the contested measures are contrary to the objectives                1998 by Associazione Nazionale Bieticoltori, Consorzio
                                                                     Nazionale Bieticoltori and Associazione Bieticoltori
pursued by the basic regulation and are liable to
                                                                     Italiani, represented by Massimo Moretto, Roberto
compromise the proper functioning of the common
market organisation in question.                                     Santoro and Paola Giacovelli, of the Venice, Padua and
                                                                     Bari Bars respectively, with an address for service in
                                                                     Brussels at Studio Legale Moretto, 67 Avenue des
                                                                     Nerviens.
The applicant also alleges breach of the principles of legal
certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations.          The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance
In its view, there is no doubt that the function of the limit        should:
date of 1 August, the date on which the intervention price
for white sugar must be fixed, as required by Article 3(4)           Ð annul, under Article 173 of the EC Treaty, Article 1 of
of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81, is to allow interested                    Council Regulation (EC) No 1361/98 of 26 June 1998
parties, and primarily beet growers, to ascertain the                     fixing, for the 1998/1999 marketing year, the derived
minimum price that they will be guaranteed for the                        intervention prices for white sugar, the intervention
marketing year for which they are sowing. The applicant                   price for raw sugar, the minimum prices for A and B
also observes that the contested measures, although issued                beet, and the amount of compensation for storage
only at the end of June 1998, have an impact on the 1998/                 costs (OJ 185, 30.6.1998, p. 3), and, so far as
1999 marketing year for which sowing was undertaken in                    necessary, Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EC)
February or March of the same year and even, for                          No 1360/98 of the same date fixing, for the 1998/
southern areas, in November and December 1997. The                        1999 marketing year, certain sugar prices and the
applicant's position is therefore that it knows the price for             standard quality of beet (OJ L 185, 30.6.1998, p. 1);
the sale of beet covered by supply contracts already
concluded and that that price no longer coincides with the
derived price at a time when it cannot change its                    Ð order the defendant to pay compensation under
production plans. Moreover, the contested regulation is                   Article 178 and the second paragraph of Article 215
also inimical to the related principle of the protection of               of the EC Treaty for all damage caused to the
legitimate expectations as far as beet growers are                        applicant by the contested measures, plus interest and
concerned since they legitimately relied on the thirty-year               an adjustment for monetary depreciation.
basis of the minimum guaranteed price for beet produced
in Italy.                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                     The contentions and principal arguments adduced in
                                                                     support are the same as those put forward in Case T-152/
As regards breach of the principle of non-discrimination,            98 Ponte S. Pietro v. Council'.
also alleged by the applicant, it is contended that, since
the pattern of imports and exports of sugar in certain
countries treated as being in deficit by the contested
measures and in Italy have remained substantially the
same for the marketing years from 1990 to 1997, it is
hard to see why, against that background, Italy is
excluded from the list of deficit areas for the 1998/1999            Action brought on 23 September 1998 by Asia Motor
marketing year.                                                      France and Others against the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-154/98)
                                                                                (98/C 358/41)
The applicant also alleges breach of the duty to state
reasons.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of First


title: Case T-773/16: Action brought on 7 November 2016 — Salehi v Commission

text:
               20.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 53/29

         Action brought on 7 November 2016 — Salehi v Commission
   (Case T-773/16)
   (2017/C 053/36)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Dominik Salehi (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: C. Drews, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that the defendant has infringed Article 1(4) of Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 (as amended by Regulation (EU) No 1289/2013) by failing to refer to the applicant’s letters of 1 July 2016 and 16 September 2016 to take the measures provided for in that provision and to send a communication to the applicant;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: infringement of the principle of reciprocity by the strict application of the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015

               1.

               Second plea in law, defendant’s failure to act

         The applicant complains that the Commission has not adopted measures pursuant to Article 1(4)(e)(i) of Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 of 15 March 2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement (OJ 2001 L 81, p. 1).


title: Case T-226/13 P: Appeal brought on 14 April 2013 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 6 February 2013 in Case F-67/12, Marcuccio v Commission

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/36

         Appeal brought on 14 April 2013 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 6 February 2013 in Case F-67/12, Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case T-226/13 P)
   2013/C 171/69
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               Grant all the appellant’s claims in the proceedings at first instance;

               —

               Order the Commission to reimburse the appellant in respect of the costs incurred by him in the proceedings at first instance.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   These proceedings are brought against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 6 February 2013 rejecting as manifestly lacking any foundation in law an action seeking: (i) annulment of the decision by which the European Commission rejected the appellant’s claim for compensation for the damage arising as a result of the fact that a letter concerning the manner in which the judgment of the Tribunal of 4 November 2008 in Case F-41/06 Marcuccio v Commission was to be enforced was sent to the lawyer who represented him in the appeal proceedings against that judgment; and (ii) an order that the Commission pay compensation for the damage purportedly caused as a result of that act.
   In support of his appeal, the appellant alleges an absolute failure to state reasons for the rejection of his claim for compensation, by reason, inter alia, of failure to make inquiries, distortion and misrepresentation of the facts, arbitrary reasoning and incorrect and unreasonable interpretation and application of:

               the rules of law relating to the incurring of Aquilian liability on the part of the institutions of the European Union;

               the concept of the duty to state reasons incumbent on all European Union institutions and the European Union judicature;

               the concept of unlawful conduct on the part of a European Union institution.

               The appellant also contends that the ruling of the court at first instance on costs was unlawful.


title: Case T-134/17: Action brought on 2 March 2017 — Hércules Club de Fútbol v Commission

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/49

         Action brought on 2 March 2017 — Hércules Club de Fútbol v Commission
   (Case T-134/17)
   (2017/C 144/68)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Hércules Club de Fútbol, SAD (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: S. Rating and Y. Martínez Mata, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Decision C(2017) 736 final of the European Commission of 2 February 2017 in Case GESTDEM 2016/6034 to 2016/6044;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present application has been brought against the decision confirming a decision refusing access to the documents sought by Hércules CF, in relation to certain documents in the administrative file that led to the adoption of Decision C(2016) 4060 final of 4 July 2016 on the State Aid SA.36387 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) (ex 2013/CP) implemented by Spain for Valencia Club de Fútbol Sociedad Anónima Deportiva, Hércules Club de Fútbol Sociedad Anónima Deportiva and Elche Club de Fútbol Sociedad Anónima Deportiva.
   In support of its action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in concluding that access to the requested documents could be refused on the basis of the third and first indents of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 4).

                           —

                           The applicant argues, in that respect, that the Commission automatically applied the general presumption of confidentiality of the administrative file in State aid proceedings established by the case-law; and that the Commission incorrectly applied, by analogy, the case-law concerning merger cases, in relation to the effects on the commercial interests of third parties.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission incorrectly applied Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001.

                           —

                           The applicant argues in this respect that the case-law relating to merger cases is also inapplicable by analogy here. While, in those cases, it is understandable that the information continues to be sensitive after the Commission’s decision, that is not the case as regards a single loan, the conditions of which the Commission considers to be incompatible with the TFEU.

               3.

               Third plea in law, put forward in the alternative, alleging that, even if the confidentiality grounds raised by the Commission were well-founded in this case, there is an overriding public interest which justifies granting access to the documents requested, namely ensuring that the applicant is adequately able to exercise the rights of defence laid down in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, put forward in the alternative, alleging the infringement of Article 4(6) of Regulation No 1049/2001, in that, ultimately, the Commission is required to offer at least partial access to the requested information.


title: Case C-116/14: Action brought on 10 March 2014  — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

text:
               5.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 135/27

         Action brought on 10 March 2014 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-116/14)
   2014/C 135/32
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: N. Yerrell and P. Guerra e Andrade, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic

      Form of order sought

   The European Commission claims that the Court of Justice shall:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt and communicate the necessary guidelines, the Portuguese Republic has not complied with Article 8(1) and (2) of Directive 2008/96/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on road infrastructure safety management;

               —

               order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Under Article 8(1) of Directive 2008/96/EC, Member States must ensure that guidelines, if they do not already exist, are adopted by 19 December 2011, in order to support the competent entities in the application of the directive.
   More than two years after the expiry of the deadline for adopting those guidelines, Portugal has still not adopted them.
   Under Article 8(2) of Directive 2008/96/EC, Member States must communicate those guidelines to the Commission within three months of their adoption.
   As Portugal has not adopted any guidelines, it has failed to comply with the obligation to communicate.

      (1)  OJ 2008 L 319, p. 59


title: Case C-79/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 14 February 2014  — TUIfly GmbH v Harald Walter

text:
               12.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/17

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 14 February 2014 — TUIfly GmbH v Harald Walter
   (Case C-79/14)
   2014/C 142/23
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Hannover

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: TUIfly GmbH

      Defendant: Harald Walter

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 7 of Regulation EC No 261/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council to be interpreted as meaning that a non-notified ‘early’ flight, with the result that the passengers cannot take the flight, is also covered by the regulation?

               2.

               Is the regulation to be interpreted as meaning that, with the exception of Article 5, the cause of the delay is not decisive?

               3.

               Is the aim of the regulation, namely to compensate for the damage arising from a loss of time, also affected if the passenger would arrive earlier and therefore time arrangements before the flight are concerned?

               4.

               Does the lack of notification of the bringing forward of the flight, the consequence of which was that the holiday resort was reached later than planned, result in the regulation being applied?

               5.

               Is the aim of the regulation to provide a high level of protection, with the result that the restriction of the passenger’s time arrangements is protected? Also in respect of an early arrival?

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


title: Case T-194/11: Action brought on 31 March 2011 — Bro Grébé v Council

text:
               21.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 152/31

         Action brought on 31 March 2011 — Bro Grébé v Council
   (Case T-194/11)
   2011/C 152/56
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Geneviève Bro Grébé (Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire) (represented by: J. C. Tchikaya, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011 amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d'Ivoire, and Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d'Ivoire, in so far as they concern the applicant;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments relied on by the applicants are essentially identical or similar to those submitted in Case T-118/11 Attey v Council


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 2 October 2003 in Case C-199/99 P: Corus UK Ltd v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Agreements and concerted practices — European producers of beams)

text:
C 275/4                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                            15.11.2003
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European                    1.    Dismisses the appeal;
Communities (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) of
11 March 1999 in Case T-157/94 Ensidesa v Commission                       2.    Orders Corus UK Ltd to pay the costs.
[1999] ECR II-707, seeking to have that judgment set aside,
the other party to the proceedings being: Commission of the
                                                                           (1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.
European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and W. Wils),
assisted by J. Rivas de Andrés), the Court (Fifth Chamber),
composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber,
D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and S. von
Bahr, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
on 2 October 2003, in which it:                                                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 30 September 2003
1.    Dismisses the appeal;
                                                                           In Joined Cases C-57/00 P and C-61/00 P: Freistaat Sachsen,
2.    Orders Empresa Siderúrgica SA (Ensidesa) to pay the costs.
                                                                           Volkswagen AG and Volkswagen Sachsen GmbH v Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities (1)
(1) OJ C 299 of 16.10.1999.
                                                                           (State aid — Compensation for the economic disadvantages
                                                                           caused by the division of Germany — Serious disturbance in
                                                                           the economy of a Member State — Regional economic
                                                                           development — Community framework for State aid in the
                                                                                motor vehicle industry)
                                                                                (2003/C 275/09)
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                         (Fifth Chamber)                                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                       of 2 October 2003
                                                                           In Joined Cases C-57/00 P and C-61/00 P, Freistaat Sachsen
in Case C-199/99 P: Corus UK Ltd v Commission of the                       (represented by J. Sedemund) with an address for service in
                  European Communities (1)                                 Luxembourg (C-57/00 P), Volkswagen AG and Volkswagen
                                                                           Sachsen GmbH (represented by M. Schütte) with an address
(Appeal — Agreements and concerted practices — European                    for service in Luxembourg (C-61/00 P): Appeals against the
                       producers of beams)                                 judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                           Communities (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) of
                                                                           15 December 1999 in Joined Cases T-132/96 and T-143/96
                        (2003/C 275/08)                                    Freistaat Sachsen and Others v Commission [1999] ECR II-
                                                                           3663, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other parties
                                                                           to the proceedings being: Commission of the European
                   (Language of the case: English)                         Communities (Agent: K.-D. Borchardt, assisted by M. Núñez-
                                                                           Müller) with an address for service in Luxembourg, Federal
                                                                           Republic of Germany (Agent: T. Oppermann) and United
                                                                           Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Court,
In Case C-199/99 P, Corus UK Ltd, formerly British Steel plc,              composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissoch-
established in London (United Kingdom), (represented by                    et, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen and C.W.A. Timmermans
P. Collins and M. Levitt, solicitors): Appeal against the judg-            (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann, V. Skouris,
ment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communi-               F. Macken (Rapporteur), S. von Bahr and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues,
ties (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) of 11 March                    Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal
1999 in Case T-151/94 British Steel v Commission [1999]                    Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
ECR II-629, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other             30 September 2003, in which it:
party to the proceedings being: Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: J. Currall and W. Wils, assisted by                   1.    Dismisses the appeals;
J. Flynn, barrister), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, A. La                2.    Orders the Freistaat Sachsen to pay the costs in Case C-57/
Pergola, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges; C. Stix-                  00 P;
Hackl, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Adminis-
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 2 October               3.    Orders Volkswagen AG and Volkswagen Sachsen GmbH to
2003, in which it:                                                               pay the costs in Case C-61/00 P;


title: Joined Cases T-479/11 and T-157/12: Judgment of the General Court of 26 May 2016 — France and IFP Énergies nouvelles v Commission (State aid — Oil exploration — Implied and unlimited guarantee of the State conferred on the French Petroleum Institute (IFP) by the granting of the status of publicly owned industrial and commercial establishment (EPIC) — Advantage — Presumption of advantage)

text:
               11.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 May 2016 — France and IFP Énergies nouvelles v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-479/11 and T-157/12) (1)

   ((State aid - Oil exploration - Implied and unlimited guarantee of the State conferred on the French Petroleum Institute (IFP) by the granting of the status of publicly owned industrial and commercial establishment (EPIC) - Advantage - Presumption of advantage))
   (2016/C 251/20)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: French Republic (represented initially by E. Belliard, G. de Bergues, B. Beaupère-Manokha and J. Gstalter, then by E. Belliard, G. de Bergues, J. Gstalter and S. Menez, then by G. de Bergues, S. Menez, D. Colas and J. Bousin, and lastly by G. de Bergues, D. Colas and J. Bousin, acting as Agents) (Case T-479/11); and IFP Énergies nouvelles (Rueil-Malmaison, France) (represented initially by É. Morgan de Rivery and A. Noël-Baron, and subsequently by É. Morgan de Rivery and E. Lagathu, lawyers) (Case T-157/12)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky, D. Grespan and K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of Commission Decision 2012/26/EU of 29 June 2011 on State aid granted by France to the Institut Français du Pétrole (Case C 35/08 (ex NN 11/08)) (OJ 2012 L 14, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 1(3) to (5) and Articles 2 to 12 of Commission Decision 2012/26/EU of 29 June 2011 on State aid granted by France to the Institut Français du Pétrole (Case C 35/08 (ex NN 11/08));

               2.

               Dismisses the actions as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear two thirds of its own costs in Cases T-479/11 and T-157/12 and to pay two thirds of the costs borne by the French Republic and IFP Énergies nouvelles;

               4.

               Orders the French Republic to bear one third of its own costs and one third of the Commission’s costs in Case T-479/11;

               5.

               Orders IFP Énergies nouvelles to bear one third of its own costs and one third of the Commission’s costs in Case T-157/12.

      (1)  OJ C 340, 19.11.2011.


title: Case T-457/08: Action brought on 10 October 2008 — Intel v Commission

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/60

         Action brought on 10 October 2008 — Intel v Commission
   (Case T-457/08)
   (2008/C 301/99)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Intel Corp. (Wilmington, United States) (represented by: N. Green QC, K. Bacon, Barrister)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decisions;

               —

               Extend the deadline for submission of Intel's reply to the supplementary statement of objections (‘SSO’) to a period of 30 days from the date on which Intel is given access to the relevant documents of the complainant;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay Intel's costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By means of this application the applicant seeks annulment, pursuant to Article 230 EC, of the Hearing Officer's decision of 15 September 2008 taken under Article 10 of Commission Decision 2001/462/EC (1) in Case COMP/C-3/37.990 — Intel relating to a proceeding under Article 82 EC, together with a decision by the Commissioner on or about 6 October 2008. The contested decisions concern the refusal on the part of the Commission to procure, particularly from the complainant in the case, certain documentary evidence that the applicant claims to be directly relevant to the allegations made by the Commission in the SSO. The Hearing Officer has also rejected Intel's submission that it cannot respond properly to the SSO without being provided with those documents, and has refused to further extend the deadline for Intel to file its reply to the SSO.
   The applicant puts forward two pleas in law in support of its claims.
   First, the applicant submits that the decisions contain errors in law and it claims that the time-limit for its reply to the SSO cannot start to run unless the file is materially complete; otherwise the undertaking wouldn't be able to exercise effectively its rights of defence.
   Secondly, the applicant argues that the contested decisions are manifestly illegal because they permit the Commission to continue with an investigation which is discriminatory and partial, and which prevents the applicant from exercising its rights of defence. The applicant claims that this constitutes the violation of the principle of sound administration which requires the Commission to adopt its decision on the basis of all available factual and legal information which might have a bearing on the result.

      (1)  Commission Decision of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of hearing officers in certain competition proceedings, OJ L 162, p. 21.


title: Case C-71/07 P: Appeal brought on 12 February 2007 by Franco Campoli against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 29 November 2006 in Case T-135/05 Campoli v Commission

text:
               26.5.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 117/2

         Appeal brought on 12 February 2007 by Franco Campoli against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 29 November 2006 in Case T-135/05 Campoli v Commission

   (Case C-71/07 P)
   (2007/C 117/02)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: (represented by G. Vandersanden, L. Levi and S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by V. Joris and D. Martin, Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by M. Arpio and I. Šulce, Agents)
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 29 November 2006 in Case T-135/05;

               —

               consequently, grant the applicant the benefit of the forms of order that he sought at first instance, amended in the light of the inadmissibility of the applicant's claim regarding household allowance and education allowance and therefore,

                           —

                           annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 13 December 2004 dismissing his complaint, along with, first, the decision of the Appointing Authority contested in the complaint, which amended from 1 May 2004 the weighting applicable to his pension, and, second, his payslips inasmuch as they apply that decision from May 2004.

                           —

                           order the defendant to pay the costs.

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs at first instance and on appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant relies on a number of arguments in support of his single plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment and failure to observe the obligation, binding on the Community judicature, to state reasons.
   The principle was allegedly disregarded, first, in that the Court of First Instance found that the legislature was entitled to amend the Staff Regulations by establishing less favourable conditions than those under the system then in force, on condition that it provide for a sufficiently long transitional period. The existence of a transitional period and the examination of whether it was of sufficient duration are factors falling outside the scope of the examination of the lawfulness of a new measure in the light of the principle of equal treatment, observance of which requires verification by the court of the absence of any arbitrary or manifestly inappropriate difference in treatment contrary to the object pursued by the Community legislature. In the present case, the judgment under appeal allegedly neither defined the object pursued by the new rules concerning the setting of the weighting nor, a fortiori, assessed whether there was any arbitrary or manifestly inappropriate difference in treatment in relation to that object. The applicant adds that setting the weighting at the average level of the cost of living of a country undermines both the objective of maintaining the purchasing power of pensioners and that of guaranteeing their freedom of movement and residence, since pensioners living in the capital of a country, or in another of its expensive towns or regions, would have lesser purchasing power than pensioners who have established their residence outside that capital or those towns or regions.
   By his second submission, the applicant maintains that, contrary to the findings of the judgment under appeal, the new pension scheme effectively provides for a link to the cost of living in Brussels, so that the income of pensioners living in Belgium is set by taking into account solely the cost of living in the capital of that Member State, whilst the income of pensioners living in the capitals of other Member States is actually determined by a weighting which takes into account the average cost of living in the entire country. The applicant challenges, moreover, the finding of the Court of First Instance that the lawfulness of a Community legislative act cannot depend on the way in which it is applied in practice, since the measures implementing such an act are closely linked to the act itself, and relies on a breach of the rights of the defence and of the principle of the equality of the parties before the Community judicature, inasmuch as he knew of the measures implementing the new pension scheme only after the close of the written procedure.
   By his final submission, the applicant challenges the Court of First Instance's finding that he had no legal interest in bringing proceedings pursuant to Article 241 EC by referring to the advantage conferred on pensioners living in a ‘less expensive ’Member State. In complaining of the different treatment reserved for pensioners living in a ‘less expensive ’Member State as compared with pensioners living in an ‘expensive ’Member State, he is attacking the breach of the principle of equality of purchasing power and aiming, thereby, to call into question the pension scheme resulting from the new Staff Regulations and its transitional measures.


C 94/16              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 28.3.98
      Removal from the register of Case C-120/96 (1)                     Removal from the register of Case C-79/97 (1)
                         (98/C 94/33)                                                      (98/C 94/37)
By order of 1 December 1997, the President of the Court           By order of 1 December 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the                of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-120/96 (Reference for         removal from the register of Case C-79/97: (Reference for
a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf):          a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München):
FRUKO-Handelsgesellschaft mbH v. Hauptzollamt Emme-               Happy Sports Michl OHG v. Finanzamt Landshut.
rich.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 131, 26.4.1997.
(1) OJ C 180, 22.6.1996.
                                                                         Removal from the register of Case C-99/97 (1)
      Removal from the register of Case C-300/96 ( )1
                                                                                (98/C 94/38)
                         (98/C 94/34)
                                                                  By order of 1 December 1997, the President of the Court
By order of 1 December 1997, the President of the Court           of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the                removal from the register of Case C-99/97: (Reference for
removal from the register of Case C-300/96 (Reference for         a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien):
a preliminary ruling from the Schleswig-Holsteinisches            Verein zur Förderung des freien Wettbewerbs im Medien-
Verwaltungsgericht): Erika Reimer v. Amt für Land- und            wesen v. TV Spielfilm Verlag Gesellschaft mbH.
Wasserwirtschaft Flensburg.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 131, 26.4.1997.
(1) OJ C 336, 9.11.1996.
                                                                        Removal from the register of Case C-135/97 (1)
      Removal from the register of Case C-345/96 (1)                                       (98/C 94/39)
                         (98/C 94/35)
                                                                  By order of 1 December 1997, the President of the Court
                                                                  of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
By order of 1 December 1997, the President of the Court           removal from the register of Case C-135/97: (Reference
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the                for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht
removal from the register of Case C-345/96 (Reference for         Wien): Verein zur Förderung des freien Wettbewerbs im
a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Nieder-        Medienwesen v. MVF Magazin-Verlag am Fleetrand
sachsen): Landeshauptstadt Hannover v. Almut Sattler.             Gesellschaft mbH.
(1) OJ C 370, 7.12.1996.                                          (1) OJ C 166, 31.5.1997.
      Removal from the register of Case C-414/96 (1)                    Removal from the register of Case C-223/97 (1)
                         (98/C 94/36)                                                      (98/C 94/40)
By order of 1 December 1997, the President of the Court           By order of 1 December 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the                of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-414/96 (Reference for         removal from the register of Case C-223/97 (Reference for
a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Hamburg):             a preliminary ruling from the Bundesvergabeamt): HDM
Mechthild Kehrl v. Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse Ham-               Flugservice GesmbH. v. Hauptverband der österreichischen
burg, intervener: Bundesanstalt für Arbeit.                       Sozialversicherungsträger.
(1) OJ C 131, 26.4.1997.                                          (1) OJ C 228, 26.7.1997.


title: Case T-142/13: Order of the General Court of 10 February 2014  — Jinko Solar and Others v Parliament and Others

text:
               12.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/54

         Order of the General Court of 10 February 2014 — Jinko Solar and Others v Parliament and Others
   (Case T-142/13) (1)

   2014/C 142/70
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 123, 27.4.2013.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber) of 18 December 1997 in Case T-57/96: Livio Costantini v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Change of place of employment - Return to the place of original employment - Installation allowance - Daily subsistence allowance)

text:
7.2.98                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 41/21
of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of A. Saggio,            2. The Commission is ordered to pay to the applicant the
President, V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges; H.                    amount of the allowance provided for by Article 5(3)
Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 18 December 1997,                    of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, together with
the operative part of which is as follows:                               interest at the rate of 8 % per annum as from the date
                                                                         of the application.
1. The decision of the Commission, communicated by
     note of 17 May 1995, denying payment to the                     3. The remainder of the application is dismissed.
     applicant of the installation allowance is annulled.
2. The Commission is ordered to pay to the applicant the             4. The Commission shall bear its own costs and one half
     amount of the allowance provided for in Article 5(3)                of the costs of the applicant. The applicant shall bear
     of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, together with                one half of his own costs.
     interest at the rate of 8 % per annum as from the date
     of the application.                                             (1) OJ C 180, 22.6.1996.
3. The Commission shall bear its own expenses.
(1) OJ C 64, 2.3.1996.
                                                                     Action brought on 26 November 1997 by Alitalia against
                                                                            the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-296/97)
                                                                                (98/C 41/45)
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        (First Chamber)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                     of 18 December 1997
in Case T-57/96: Livio Costantini v. Commission of the
                   European Communities (1)                          An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
(Officials Ð Change of place of employment Ð Return to               Instance of the European Communities on 26 November
the place of original employment Ð Installation allowance            1997 by Alitalia, represented by Antonio Tizzano and
                Ð Daily subsistence allowance)                       Gian Michele Roberti, of the Naples Bar, Mario Siragusa,
                          (98/C 41/44)                               of the Rome Bar, Giuseppe Scassellati Sforzolini, of the
                                                                     Bologna Bar, Matteo Bay, of the Milan Bar, and Matteo
                                                                     Beretta, of the Bergamo Bar, with an address for service in
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                     Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger Hoss &
                                                                     Prussen, 2 Place Winston Churchill.
In Case T-57/96: Livio Costantini, an official of the
Commission of the European Communities, posted to the                The applicant claims that the Court should:
establishment at Ispra of the Joint Research Centre,
represented by Giuseppe Marchesini, Avvocato with the
right of audience before the Court of Cassation of the               Ð annul in its entirety the Commission's decision of
Italian Republic, with an address for service in                         15 July 1997 relating to Alitalia's recapitalisation, or
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8Ð10
Rue Mathias Hardt, against Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: Gianluigi Valsesia) Ð application
                                                                     In the alternative:
for annulment of the decisions of the Commission refusing
to pay to the applicant an installation allowance and a
daily subsistence allowance upon the latter's return to his
original place of employment after a period of                       Ð annul the conditions for granting the aid referred to in
employment outwith his institution Ð the Court of First                  Article 1(2) to (8) of the Decision,
Instance (First Chamber), composed of A. Saggio,
President, V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges; A.
Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on           Ð annul also the condition requiring Alitalia to bear the
18 December 1997, the operative part of which is as                      costs of the early retirement scheme provided for by
follows:                                                                 Decree Law No 546/1996,
1. The decision of the Commission refusing the applicant             Ð order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by
     payment of the installation allowance is annulled.                  Alitalia in the course of these proceedings.


title: Case T-163/05: Judgment of the General Court of 3 March 2010 — Bundesverband deutscher Banken v Commission (State aid — Transfer of public assets to Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen Girozentrale — Decision declaring the aid to be, in part, incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery — Private investor test — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based)

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/36

         Judgment of the General Court of 3 March 2010 — Bundesverband deutscher Banken v Commission
   (Case T-163/05) (1)

   (State aid - Transfer of public assets to Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen Girozentrale - Decision declaring the aid to be, in part, incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - Private investor test - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based)
   2010/C 100/54
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Bundesverband deutscher Banken eV (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: H.-J. Niemeyer, K.-S. Scholz and J.-O. Lenschow, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: N. Khan and T. Scharf, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by M. Lumma and C. Schulze-Bahr, acting as Agents, and by J. Witting, lawyer); Land Hessen (Germany) (represented initially by H.-J. Freund and M. Holzhäuser, and subsequently by H.-J. Freund and S. Lehr, lawyers); and Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen Girozentrale (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by H.-J. Freund, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/742/EC of 20 October 2004 on aid granted by Germany [to] Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen — Girozentrale (OJ 2006 L 307, p. 159)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Orders the documents produced by the Bundesverband deutscher Banken eV at Annexes 9 and 10 to the reply to be removed from the file;

               2.

               Dismisses the application;

               3.

               Orders the Bundesverband deutscher Banken to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, the Land Hessen and Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen Girozentrale;

               4.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 155, 25.6.2005.


title: Case C-451/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation (France) by order of that court of  13 December 2005  in Elisa (Européenne et luxembourgeoise d'investissements SA) v Directeur général des Impôts, Direction des services généraux et de l'informatique and Ministère public

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation (France) by order of that court of 13 December 2005 in Elisa (Européenne et luxembourgeoise d'investissements SA) v Directeur général des Impôts, Direction des services généraux et de l'informatique and Ministère public
   (Case C-451/05)
   (2006/C 60/38)
   Language of the case: French
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Cour de Cassation (Court of Cassation, France) of 13 December 2005, received at the Court Registry on 19 December 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Elisa (Européenne et luxembourgeoise d'investissements SA) and the Directeur général des Impôts (Director-General of Taxes, General Services and Information Technology Directorate) Ministère public (State Council's Office) on the following questions:

               1.

               Do Articles 52 et seq. and 73b et seq. of the EC Treaty preclude legislation such as that laid down by Article 990D et seq. of the General Tax Code which grants legal persons having their effective centre of management in France entitlement to exemption from the tax on the commercial value of properties owned in France and which, as regards legal persons having their effective centre of management in the territory of another country, even if it is a Member State of the European Union, makes that entitlement conditional on the existence of a convention on administrative assistance to combat tax evasion and avoidance concluded between France and that State or on there being a requirement, under a treaty including a clause prohibiting discrimination on grounds of nationality, that those legal persons are not to be taxed more heavily than legal persons having their effective centre of management in France?

               2.

               Does a tax such as the tax at issue constitute a tax on capital within the meaning of Article 1 of the Council Directive of 19 December 1977 concerning mutual assistance by the competent authorities of the Member States in the field of direct and indirect taxation? (1)

               3.

               If so, do the obligations imposed on Member States concerning mutual assistance in the field of taxation by the Directive of 19 December 1977, cited above, preclude the implementation by the Member States, under a bilateral convention on administrative assistance in the field of taxation, of obligations of the same kind excluding a category of taxpayers such as Luxembourg holding companies?

               4.

               Do Articles 52 et seq. and 73b et seq. of the EC Treaty oblige a Member State which has concluded with another country, whether or not a member of the European Union, a convention including a clause prohibiting discrimination in the field of taxation to accord a legal person having its effective centre of management in the territory of another Member State the same benefits as those provided for by that clause, when that legal person owns one or several properties in the territory of the first Member State and the second Member State is not linked to the first by an equivalent clause?

      (1)  Council Directive 77/799 EEC of 19 December 1977 concerning mutual assistance by the competent authorities of the Member States in the field of direct taxation (OJ 1977 L 336, p. 15).


title: Case C-474/14: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 April 2016 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Salerno — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Cristiano Pontillo (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Identical questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Articles 49 and 56 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Betting and gaming — National legislation — Reorganisation of the licensing system through the alignment of licence expiry dates — New call for tenders — Licences for a shorter term than that of the former licences — Transfer, free of charge, of the rights to use tangible and intangible assets owned constituting the network for the management and collection of bets — Restriction — Overriding reasons in the public interest — Proportionality)

text:
               25.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/9

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 April 2016 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Salerno — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Cristiano Pontillo
   (Case C-474/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Identical questions referred for a preliminary ruling - Articles 49 and 56 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Betting and gaming - National legislation - Reorganisation of the licensing system through the alignment of licence expiry dates - New call for tenders - Licences for a shorter term than that of the former licences - Transfer, free of charge, of the rights to use tangible and intangible assets owned constituting the network for the management and collection of bets - Restriction - Overriding reasons in the public interest - Proportionality))
   (2016/C 270/11)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Salerno

      Criminal proceedings against

   Cristiano Pontillo

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU and the principles of equal treatment and effectiveness must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation on betting and gaming, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the organisation of a new call for tenders for the award of licences with a shorter period of validity than that of the licences awarded in the past on account of the reorganisation of the system through the alignment of licence expiry dates.

               2.

               Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a restrictive national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which requires a licensee of a betting and gambling service to transfer, free of charge, on the cessation of business as a result of the expiry of the final term of the licence, the rights to use tangible and intangible assets which he owns and which constitute his network for the management and collection of bets, in so far as that restriction goes beyond what is necessary to attain the objective actually pursued by that provision, which is for the referring court to verify.

      (1)  OJ C 462, 22.12.2014.


title: Judgment of the Court of 15 October 2002 in Case C-427/98: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Sixth VAT Directive — Money-off coupons — Taxable amount)

text:
7.12.2002                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 305/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      388/EEC and introducing new simplification measures with
                                                                             regard to value added tax — scope of certain exemptions and
                                                                             practical arrangements for implementing them (OJ 1995
                        of 15 October 2002                                   L 102, p. 18), the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias,
                                                                             President, J-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and C.W.A. Timmer-
                                                                             mans (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward,
in Case C-427/98: Commission of the European Communi-                        V. Skouris (Rapporteur), F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr
             ties v Federal Republic of Germany (1)                          and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate
                                                                             General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
                                                                             has given a judgment on 15 October 2002, in which:
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Sixth
 VAT Directive — Money-off coupons — Taxable amount)
                                                                             1.    Declares that by not adopting the measures necessary to allow
                           (2002/C 305/01)                                         adjustment of the taxable amount of the taxable person who
                                                                                has effected reimbursement where money-off coupons are
                                                                                reimbursed, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil
                    (Language of the case: German)                                 its obligations under Article 11 of Sixth Council Directive 77/
                                                                                388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws
                                                                                of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published             system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, in the
                    in the European Court Reports)                                 version contained in Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April
                                                                                1995 amending Directive 77/388/EEC and introducing new
                                                                                simplification measures with regard to value added tax —
                                                                                scope of certain exemptions and practical arrangements for
                                                                                implementing them;
In Case C-427/98, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: initially E. Traversa and A. Buschmann, and, sub-
sequently, E. Traversa and K. Gross) v Federal Republic of                   2.    Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs;
Germany (Agents: W.-D. Plessing and C.-D. Quassowski),
supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland (Agents: initially J.E. Collins, and, subsequently, R. Mag-
                                                                             3.    Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
rill, acting as Agent, assisted by R. Anderson): Application for
                                                                                Ireland to bear its own costs.
a declaration that, by not adopting provisions allowing
adjustment of the taxable amount where money-off coupons
are reimbursed, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to
fulfil its obligations under Article 11 of Sixth Council Directive
77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the                        (1 ) OJ C 20 of 23.1.1999.
laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —
Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assess-
ment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), in the version contained in Council
Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995 amending Directive 77/


C 397/32             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    19.12.98
Ð in so far as may be necessary, annul the implicit                The applicant claims that the Court should:
     rejection of the applicant's request, registered on
     27 May 1998, to be classified in grade A 4 with
     additional seniority in step in accordance with the           Ð declare unlawful the procedure to be followed in the
     Staff Regulations;                                                event of absence because of sickness, in force in the
                                                                       Council since 18 September 1997;
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs in any event.
                                                                   Ð annul the Council's decision to regard the applicant's
                                                                       absence from 9 to 22 February 1998 as unauthorised
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    and to deduct that absence from her annual leave;
                                                                   Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
The applicant maintains that, by appointing him to grade
A 5, step 5, instead of grade A 4 with additional seniority
in step, the appointing authority failed to take into              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
account his professional experience and specialist skills; it
omitted to undertake any real examination of the
applicant's situation and thereby infringed the second             The applicant submits, first, that the defendant failed to
paragraph of Article 5(1), Article 5(3), the second                comply in the present case with the procedure to be
paragraph of Article 25 and Articles 31 and 32 of the              followed in the event of absence because of sickness or
Staff Regulations, as well as Annex I thereto.                     accident' which it itself introduced and brought to the
                                                                   notice of staff by Communication No 117/97 of
                                                                   18 September 1997.
In addition, the contested decisions in breach of the 1983
decision concerning the criteria applicable to appointment
in grade and classification in step on recruitment as              She further contests the lawfulness of that implementing
amended on 7 February 1986.                                        provision, in that it provides, in the event of a dispute
                                                                   concerning the conclusions of the medical examination,
                                                                   for an arbitration procedure' which disregards the rights
Furthermore, the appointing authority is required by               of defence of the person concerned, since it does not allow
general principles to apply equal treatment to the                 him to designate the doctor of his choice to safeguard his
situations of officials and to take administrative decisions       rights and interests by his presence.
which are based on proper grounds, that is to say, not
vitiated by manifest errors of law or of fact.
                                                                   In the applicant's opinion, where the administration has
                                                                   before it such a dispute, it is obliged to refer the matter to
Finally, the applicant pleads breach of the principle of the       an invalidity committee, in accordance with Article 59(3)
protection of legitimate expectations and misuse of                of the Staff Regulations.
powers.
                                                                   The applicant submits, finally, that the contested decisions
                                                                   lack any statement of reasons.
Action brought on 15 October 1998 by Maria Adelina
    Biasutto against the Council of the European Union
                       (Case T-171/98)                             Action brought on 26 October 1998 by Zino Davidoff SA
                                                                   and Davidoff and Cie SA against the European Parliament
                        (98/C 397/63)                                        and the Council of the European Union
                                                                                (Case T-177/98)
               (Language of the case: French)                                              (98/C 397/64)
An action against the Commission of the European                                 (Language of the case: German)
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 15 October
1998 by Maria Adelina Biasutto, residing in Brussels,              An action against the European Parliament and the
represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis and FrancËoise Parmentier,         Council of the European Union was brought before the
of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
Luxembourg at the Office of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30              26 October 1998 by Zino Davidoff SA and Davidoff and
Rue de Cessange.                                                   Cie SA, of Fribourg and Geneva (Switzerland), represented