title: Case C-350/10: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland)) — proceedings brought by Nordea Pankki Suomi Oyj (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sixth VAT Directive — Article 13B(d)(3) and (5) — Exemptions — Transfers and payments — Transactions in securities — Electronic messaging services for financial institutions)

text:
               8.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 298/9

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland)) — proceedings brought by Nordea Pankki Suomi Oyj
   (Case C-350/10) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Sixth VAT Directive - Article 13B(d)(3) and (5) - Exemptions - Transfers and payments - Transactions in securities - Electronic messaging services for financial institutions)
   2011/C 298/16
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Korkein hallinto-oikeus

      Party to the main proceedings

   Nordea Pankki Suomi Oyj

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Interpretation of Article 13B(d)(3) and (5) 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 system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Exemptions for banking transactions — SWIFT services for banks

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 13B(d)(3) and (5) 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 system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from value added tax under that provision does not cover electronic messaging services for financial institutions, such as those at issue in the main proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 246, 11.9.2010.


title: Case T-498/04: Action brought on 23 December 2004 by Zhejiang Xinan Chemical Industrial Group Co., Ltd against the Council of the European Union

text:
               5.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 57/35

         Action brought on 23 December 2004 by Zhejiang Xinan Chemical Industrial Group Co., Ltd against the Council of the European Union
   (Case T-498/04)
   (2005/C 57/60)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 23 December 2004 by Zhejiang Xinan Chemical Industrial Group Co., Ltd, Jiande City (People's Republic of China), represented by D. Horovitz, lawyer with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Article 1 of the contested Regulation in so far as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs of the applicant in the present proceeding.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant seeks the annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1683/2004 of 24 September 2004 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of glyphosate originating in the People's Republic of China (1), insofar as it concerns the applicant. The applicant submits that the Community institutions failed to apply properly the market economy treatment test to it.
   In support of its application, the applicant invokes a manifest error of assessment in the application of Article 2(7)(c) of Regulation No 384/96 (2), as amended.
   The applicant claims that the Council did not state in the contested regulation that there has been significant state interference in the applicant's business decisions. Also, the Council did not apply, according to the applicant, the right threshold to assess whether the criteria set in Article 2(7)(c) were fulfilled. The applicant contests that the alleged right of the state to intervene in the company's business decisions, without any materialisation or exercise of that alleged right, was a factor from which it could be inferred that the first criterion of Article 2(7)(c) was not fulfilled. The applicant submits furthermore that the evidence supplied clearly established that the applicant's decisions on prices, costs and inputs responded to market signals reflecting supply and demand, and that there was no state interference in this regard.
   Second, the applicant invokes the failure to comply with paragraph 6 of annex II of the WTO's anti-dumping agreement and with Article 18(4) of Regulation No 384/96, as well as with the obligation to protect the applicant's legal rights. The applicant claims that its legal and procedural rights were infringed by not informing it of the reasons for the rejection of its evidence, by failing to grant it an opportunity to provide further information and by failing to publish the reasons for the rejection of the representations that the applicant made.
   Finally, the applicant invokes a violation of its legitimate expectations in that the Community institutions failed to come to an expeditious conclusion on the claim for market economy status of the applicant.

      (1)  OJ L 303, p. 1

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


title: Case T-705/15: Action brought on 2 December 2015 — Syriatel Mobile Telecom v Council

text:
               15.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 59/30

         Action brought on 2 December 2015 — Syriatel Mobile Telecom v Council
   (Case T-705/15)
   (2016/C 059/32)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Syriatel Mobile Telecom (Joint Stock Company) (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;

               —

               as a consequence, order the European Union to repair all of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant at an amount to be fixed equitably by the Court;

               —

               order an expert to be appointed in order to establish the total extent of the harm suffered by the applicant;

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging, first, the non-material harm caused by harm to its reputation, and, second, the material harm caused by the breakdown of its contractual relationships, by the loss of equipment and by the loss of revenue, which the applicant has suffered as a direct causal link to the measures taken by the Council of the European Union, for which the Council is liable.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 26 January 2005 in Case T-267/03 Anna Maria Roccato v the Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Internal competition — Non-admission to oral test — Selection Board's discretion — Scope of judicial review)

text:
               2.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/28

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 26 January 2005
   in Case T-267/03 Anna Maria Roccato v the Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Officials - Internal competition - Non-admission to oral test - Selection Board's discretion - Scope of judicial review)
   (2005/C 82/55)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-267/03: Anna Maria Roccato a former official of the Commission of the European Communities, residing in Bruxelles (Belgium), represented by G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers, against the Commission of the European Communities (Agents: H. Tserepa-Lacombe and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, with an address for service in Luxembourg) – application for annulment of the decision of the Selection Board in competition COM/PB/99 of 24 January 2003 and claim for damages – the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of H. Legal, President, V. Tiili and V. Vadapalas, Judges; I. Natsinas, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 26 January 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the application.

               2.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 239 of 4.10.2003.


title: Case C-135/15: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Republik Griechenland v Grigorios Nikiforidis (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Law applicable to an employment contract — Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 — Article 28 — Temporal scope — Article 9 — Concept of ‘overriding mandatory provisions’ — Application of overriding mandatory provisions of Member States other than the State of the forum — Legislation of a Member State imposing a reduction in public sector pay because of a budgetary crisis — Duty of sincere cooperation)

text:
               19.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 475/4

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Republik Griechenland v Grigorios Nikiforidis
   (Case C-135/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Law applicable to an employment contract - Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 - Article 28 - Temporal scope - Article 9 - Concept of ‘overriding mandatory provisions’ - Application of overriding mandatory provisions of Member States other than the State of the forum - Legislation of a Member State imposing a reduction in public sector pay because of a budgetary crisis - Duty of sincere cooperation))
   (2016/C 475/05)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesarbeitsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Republik Griechenland

      Respondent: Grigorios Nikiforidis

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 28 of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) must be interpreted as meaning that a contractual employment relationship that came into being before 17 December 2009 falls within the scope of the regulation only in so far as that relationship has undergone, as a result of mutual agreement of the contracting parties which has manifested itself on or after that date, a variation of such magnitude that a new employment contract must be regarded as having been concluded on or after that date, a matter which is for the referring court to determine.

               2.

               Article 9(3) of Regulation No 593/2008 must be interpreted as precluding overriding mandatory provisions other than those of the State of the forum or of the State where the obligations arising out of the contract have to be or have been performed from being applied, as legal rules, by the court of the forum, but as not precluding it from taking such other overriding mandatory provisions into account as matters of fact in so far as this is provided for by the national law that is applicable to the contract pursuant to the regulation. This interpretation is not affected by the principle of sincere cooperation laid down in Article 4(3) TEU.

      (1)  OJ C 198, 15.6.2015.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arrondissementsrechtbank, Amsterdam, by judgment of that court of 16 July 1996 in the case of 1. R. O. J. Grahame and 2. L. M. Hollanders v. Bestuur van de Nieuwe Algemene Bedrijfsvereniging (Case C-248/96)

text:
14. 9 . 96                I EN 1                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 269/ 17
      ( ii ) they have the right to a pension at the age of 55              1 . Are Articles 4 8 and 5 1 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted
              instead of the normal age of 60;                                   as meaning that the provisions of point 4 ( a ) or ( c ),
                                                                                depending on the relevant time, of Part J of Annex VI to
( d ) the worker is deprived of the status of Mental Health                      Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 are incompatible with
      Officer and the additional benefits attached thereto                       those Articles in so far as no account is taken of certain
      solely on the ground that her employment was part                          periods of work when calculating a pro rata benefit
      time ;                                                                     under the Wet op de Arbeidsongeschiktheids
                                                                                verzekering, for migrant workers ?
(e ) the national tribunal has held that the provisions
      described at ( c ) and ( d ) constitute discrimination on             2 . Is point 4 ( a ) or (c ), depending on the relevant time, of
      grounds of sex against women working part time in the                      Part J of Annex VI to Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 , as
      care of the mentally ill ;                                                 they stood on 20 July 1991 and 17 June 1992
                                                                                respectively, to be interpreted as meaning that periods of
( f) the pension which the worker receives and the                               paid employment and periods treated as such completed
      additional benefits which they claim, are only payable                     in the Netherlands before 1 July 1967 include :
      to them as and from their respective retirements in 1 992
      and 1994 , after their claims have been brought before                     ( a ) periods during which the person concerned was
      the national tribunal ; and                                                      performing his compulsory military service under
                                                                                the Netherlands legislation;
(g) the calculation of the additional benefits from their
      respective retirement dates in 1992 and 1994 would
      involve counting their years of service prior to 1992 :                    ( b ) periods during which the person concerned was an
                                                                                enlisted member of the Netherlands armed forces
                                                                                and in that capacity came under a special statutory
       1 . From what date should the service on the workers                            insurance scheme against incapacity for work for
             be counted for the purpose of calculating the                             civil servants and persons treated as such ?
             additional benefits to which they are entitled
                                                                            3 . Is the answer to question 2 different if the periods during
                 ( i ) 8 April 1976                                              which the person concerned was performing his
                                                                                compulsory military service under the Netherlands
               ( ii ) 17 May 1990                                                legislation were completed within or outside the
                                                                                territory of the European Union ( at that time the
             ( iii ) some other and if so, what date ?                            European Community )?
       2 . Where the relevant national legislation restricts
             back-dating entitlement in the event of a successful
             claim to a period of two years prior to the date on
             which the claim was made , does this amount to the
             denial of an effective remedy under Community law
             and is the industrial tribunal obliged to disregard
             such provision in domestic law if it feels it necessary        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Industrial
             to do so ?                                                     Tribunals , Southampton, by order of that court of 19 July
                                                                             1996 , in the case of Lisa Jacqueline Grant against
                                                                                South-West Trains Ltd
                                                                                ( Case C-249/96
                                                                                ( 96/C 269/36 )
 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
 Arrondissementsrechtbank, Amsterdam, by judgment of                         European Communities by order of the Industrial Tribunals
 that court of 16 July 1996 in the case of 1 . R. O.J. Grahame               of 1 9 July 1 996, which was received at the Court Registry on
  and 2 . L. M. Hollanders v. Bestuur van de Nieuwe Algemene                 22 July 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Lisa
                              Bedrijfsvereniging                            Jacqueline Grant against South-West Trains Ltd, on the
                               ( Case C-248/96 )                             following questions :
                                 ( 96/C 269/35 )
                                                                             1 . It is ( subject to 6 below ) contrary to the principle of
  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of                              equal pay for men and women established by Article 119
  the European Communities by order of the                                        of the Treaty establishing the European Community and
  Arrondissementsrechtbank ( District Court ), Amsterdam, of                      by Article 1 of Council Directive 75/1 17/EEC (') for an
  16 July 1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on                      employee to be refused travel concessions for an
  22 July 1 996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of 1 . R. O.               unmarried cohabiting same-sex partner where such
 J. Grahame and 2 . L. M. Hollanders v. Bestuur van de                            concessions are available for spouses or unmarried
  Nieuwe Algemene Bedrijfsvereniging on the following                             opposite sex cohabiting partners of such an
  questions :                                                                     employee ?


title: Case C-526/13: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Mokestinių ginčų komisija prie Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybės — Lithuania) — ‘Fast Bunkering Klaipėda’ UAB v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value Added Tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 148(a) — Supply of goods — Definition — Exemption — Supply of goods for the fuelling and provisioning of vessels used for navigation on the high seas — Supplies to intermediaries acting in their own name)

text:
               26.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 354/5

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Mokestinių ginčų komisija prie Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybės — Lithuania) — ‘Fast Bunkering Klaipėda’ UAB v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos
   (Case C-526/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value Added Tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 148(a) - Supply of goods - Definition - Exemption - Supply of goods for the fuelling and provisioning of vessels used for navigation on the high seas - Supplies to intermediaries acting in their own name))
   (2015/C 354/04)
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Referring court

   Mokestinių ginčų komisija prie Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybės

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: UAB ‘Fast Bunkering Klaipėda’

      Defendant: Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 148(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption provided for in that provision is not, in principle, applicable to supplies of goods for the fuelling and provisioning to intermediaries acting in their own name, even if, at the date on which the supply is made the ultimate use of the goods is known and duly established and evidence confirming this is submitted to the tax authority in accordance with the national legislation. However, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, that exemption may apply if the transfer to those intermediaries of the ownership in the goods concerned under the procedures laid down by the applicable national law took place at the earliest at the same time when the operators of vessels used for navigation on the high seas were actually entitled to dispose of those goods as if they were the owners, a matter which is for the national court to ascertain.

      (1)  OJ C 359, 7.12.2013.


title: Case F-45/11: Action brought on 14 April 2011 — ZZ v EIB

text:
               25.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 186/35

         Action brought on 14 April 2011 — ZZ v EIB
   (Case F-45/11)
   2011/C 186/66
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Isola, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Investment Bank

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the applicant’s staff report for the year 2009, in so far as it does not award him the mark A or B+ and in so far as it does not propose that he be promoted to Function D.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the measure, a copy of which was sent on 24 September 2010, in so far as the Appeals Committee, pursuant to Article 22 of the Staff Regulations and to its letter of 18 March 2010, rejected the applicant’s appeal against the staff report for 2009 on 22 September 2010;

               —

               annul the staff report for 2009, in so far as it relates to assessment, does not give the applicant the overall mark A or B+ and in so far as it does not propose that he be promoted to Function D;

               —

               annul all related, consequent and prior measures, including both the guidelines laid down by the HR Directorate for summarising the appraisal by using one of the first letters of the alphabet and the promotions decided upon on 25 March 2010, given that, in the light of the view expressed by the applicant’s superiors that is challenged in the present action, the EIB failed to take him into consideration for the purpose of the heading ‘Promotions from Function E to D’;

               —

               annul the letters of 17 and 30 November 2010, in which the President of the EIB, in the course of the conciliation procedure under Article 41 of the Staff Regulations, refused to allow the applicant to represent himself, and the letter of 20 January 2011, in which the HR Director-General refused to reimburse the costs incurred by the professional who represented him;

               —

               order the EIB to pay compensation for material and non-material damage, to reimburse the lawyer’s fee paid to Gabriele Isola, and to pay the costs of the proceedings together with interest and monetary revaluation of the sums awarded.


title: Case C-627/11: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 27 November 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Inalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania)) — SC ‘AUGUSTUS’ Iași SRL v Agenția de Plăți pentru Dezvoltare Rurală și Pescuit (Request for a preliminary ruling — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/5

         Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 27 November 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Inalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania)) — SC ‘AUGUSTUS’ Iași SRL v Agenția de Plăți pentru Dezvoltare Rurală și Pescuit
   (Case C-627/11) (1)

   (Request for a preliminary ruling - Manifest inadmissibility)
   2013/C 108/09
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Inalta Curte de Casație și Justiție

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: SC ‘AUGUSTUS’ Iași SRL

      Defendant: Agenția de Plăți pentru Dezvoltare Rurală și Pescuit

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Inalta Curte de Casație și Justiție — Interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1268/1999 of 21 June 1999 on Community support for pre-accession measures for agriculture and rural development in the applicant countries of central and eastern Europe in the pre-accession period (OJ 1999 L 161, p. 87) and Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (OJ 1999 L 161, p. 1) — Cancellation and recovery, in the event of improper conduct, of Community funding granted under the SAPARD programme — Eligibility of expenditure — Cases of force majeure — Justification — Notions of ‘economic efficiency’ and ‘profitability’

      Operative part of the order

   The reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Inalta Curte de Casație și Justiție — Secția de contencios administrativ și fiscal (Romania), by decision of 3 November 2011, is manifestly inadmissible.

      (1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.2012.


title: Case C-22/01: Action brought on 18 January 2001 by Kingdom of Spain against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 79/18                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       10.3.2001
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzh-                ‘Whether Directive 80/987/EEC (1) and the judgments relating
of by order of that court of 30 November 2000 in the                    to it (judgments in Joined Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90 of
     case of Finanzamt Sulingen against Walter Sudholz                  13 November 1991 and Case C-373/95 of 10 July 1997) may
                                                                        be interpreted as meaning that, subject to the ceiling imposed,
                                                                        it is lawful to prohibit aggregation of the compensation
                          (Case C-17/01)                                awarded by the Guarantee Fund and part of the wages paid by
                                                                        the employer in the last three months only as regards the
                          (2001/C 79/31)                                amount exceeding that represented by the level of the indennita
                                                                        di mobilità (job-seeker’s allowance) provided for, ratione
                                                                        temporis, in respect of the same period, in view of the fact that
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  the said advances appear, like the job seeker’s allowance and
European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof                    up to the same amount, to be intended to cover the primary
(Federal Finance Court) of 30 November 2000, received at the            needs of the dismissed worker.’
Court Registry on 15 January 2001, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Finanzamt Sulingen against Walter Sudholz on
the following questions:                                                (1) OJ 1980 L 283, p. 23 (Council directive of 20 October 1980).
1.    Is Article 2 of the Council Decision 2000/186/EC (1) of
      28 February 2000 authorising the Federal Republic of
      Germany to apply measures derogating from Articles 6
      and 17 of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC on the
      harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating
      to turnover taxes — common system of value added tax:             Action brought on 18 January 2001 by Kingdom of Spain
      uniform basis of assessment invalid because the procedure             against Commission of the European Communities
      prior to the adoption of the decision did not meet the
      criteria laid down in Article 27 of Directive 77/388/EEC?
                                                                                (Case C-22/01)
2.    Is the first paragraph of Article 3 of Decision
      2000/186/EC, under which the decision is to have                                           (2001/C 79/33)
      retroactive effect from 1 April 1999, valid?
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
3.    Does Article 2 of Decision 2000/186/EC meet the                   ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
      substantive requirements to be applied to such an author-         Communities on 18 January 2001 by the Kingdom of Spain,
      isation, and do any objections to the validity of that            represented by Rosario Silva de Lapuerta, acting as Agent, with
      provision arise as a consequence?                                 an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
( 1) OJ L 59 of 4.3.2000, p. 12.
                                                                        —     annul the point relating to anchovies referred to in note
                                                                              (2) to the item relating to stocks of ‘Anchovy; Zone: IX,
                                                                              X, CECAF 34.1.1’ contained in Annex Id to Council
                                                                              Regulation (EC) No 2848/2000 (1) of 15 December 2000
                                                                              fixing for 2001 the fishing opportunities and associated
                                                                              conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish
                                                                              stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Com-
                                                                              munity vessels, in waters where limitations in catch are
                                                                              required; and
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
Pisa — Sezione Lavoro — by order of that court of                       —     order the defendant institution to pay the costs.
19 December 2000 in the case of INPS v Alberto Barsotti
                             and Others
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
                          (Case C-19/01)
                                                                        The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put
                                                                        forward in Case C-81/00 (2) except in so far as concerns the
                          (2001/C 79/32)                                TAC for anchovy fixed by the Council in Zone VIII which for
                                                                        2001 is of 33 000 metric tonnes.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Labour Division of              (1) OJ 2000 L 334, p. 1.
the Tribunale di Pisa (District Court, Pisa) of 19 December             (2) OJ 2000 C 176, p. 4.
2000, which was received at the Court Registry on 15 January
2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of INPS v Alberto
Barsotti and Others, on the following question:


title: Case T-270/08: Action brought on 8 July 2008 — Germany v Commission

text:
               27.9.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/15

         Action brought on 8 July 2008 — Germany v Commission
   (Case T-270/08)
   (2008/C 247/28)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma, assisted by C. von Donat, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision C(2008) 1615 final of 29 April 2008 reducing the contribution under the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) granted pursuant to Commission Decision C(94) 1973 of 5 August 1994 for the Operational Programme Berlin (East) Objective 1 (1994-1999) in the Federal Republic of Germany;

               —

               Order the Commission to bear the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the contested decision the Commission reduced the financial contribution from the ERDF for the Operational Programme for the Objective 1 region of the Land of Berlin in the Federal Republic of Germany (1994-1999).
   In the reasoning for its action the applicant claims first that the Commission erroneously evaluated the factual situation. The applicant alleges in particular that the Commission misjudged the results of particular verifications and unjustifiably found systematic errors in management and control arrangements.
   Second, the applicant argues that there is no legal basis for the application of flat-rate or extrapolated financial corrections to the Operational Programme in the Programming Period 1994-1999 as there were no rules available in respect of that period similar to those laid down in Article 39 of Regulation (EC) No 1260/99 (1). Furthermore, nor can a sufficiently precise legal basis be found in the provisions of Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 (2), the internal guidelines of the Commission of 15 October 1997 on net financial corrections within the framework of Article 24 of Regulation No 4253/88 or the principles of sound financial management provided for in Article 274 EC. According to the applicant it is also not possible to find a corresponding administrative practice which has existed over many years and is generally accepted.
   The applicant claims moreover that the contested decision infringes Article 24(2) of Regulation No 4253/88 as no irregularities in the sense of that provision have occurred. It also claims in that context that even if the conditions for a reduction in accordance with Article 24(2) of Regulation No 4253/88 are met, the Commission should have used the discretion available to it and weighed up whether the reduction was proportionate.
   In the alternative, the applicant argues that the flat-rate corrections are disproportionate and that the Commission carried out the extrapolation on an inadequate factual basis.
   Furthermore, the applicant claims that the defendant infringed its obligation to provide sufficient reasons for the contested decision.
   Finally, the applicant asserts that the Commission infringed the principle of partnership since, notwithstanding numerous checks by its financial controllers during the 1994-1999 Programming Period, at no point were financial consequences contemplated on account of systemic weaknesses.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (OJ 1999 L 161, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988, laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments (OJ 1988 L 374, p. 1).


title: Case C-376/06: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 24 May 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2001/42/EC — Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               7.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/6

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 24 May 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-376/06) (1)

   (Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2001/42/EC - Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2007/C 155/10)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Caeiros and J.-B. Laignelot, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Fernandes and F. Fraústo de Azevedo, Agents
   Re:
   Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to take within the prescribed period the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (OJ 2001 L 197, p. 30)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by not adopting, within the prescribed period, the laws regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               2.

               Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 261 of 28.10.2006.


title: Case F-83/06: Action brought on 30 July 2006 — Schell v Commission

text:
               30.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 237/18

         Action brought on 30 July 2006 — Schell v Commission
   (Case F-83/06)
   (2006/C 237/31)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Arno Schell (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the lists of officials promoted in the 2004 and 2005 promotion years, in so far as these lists do not contain the applicant's name, and also, incidentally, the preparatory actions of those decisions;

               —

               in the alternative, annul the allocation of promotion points in those years in so far as the applicant is concerned;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of his application, the applicant relies on the seven following pleas in law:

               —

               first, infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               second, infringement of the general implementing provisions in respect of that article;

               —

               third, infringement of the principle of non-discrimination;

               —

               fourth, infringement of the Administrative Guide ‘Appraisal and Promotion of Officials’, and of successive Guides;

               —

               fifth, infringement of the principles of prohibition of arbitrary procedures and of abuse of powers, and also infringement of the duty to give reasons;

               —

               sixth, infringement of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations, and of the rule ‘Patere legem quam ipse fecisti’ (obey the rules which you yourself have made);

               —

               seventh, infringement of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials.


title: Case C-663/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 14 December 2015 — Umweltverband WWF Österreich v Landeshauptmann von Tirol

text:
               29.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 111/3

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 14 December 2015 — Umweltverband WWF Österreich v Landeshauptmann von Tirol
   (Case C-663/15)
   (2016/C 111/04)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant on a point of law: Umweltverband WWF Österreich

      Respondent authority: Landeshauptmann von Tirol

      Intervener: Ötztaler Wasserkraft GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 4 of Directive 2000/60/EC (1) establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (‘the Water Framework Directive’) or the Water Framework Directive as a whole confer on an environmental organisation, in a procedure which is not subject to an environmental impact assessment under Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (‘the EIA Directive’), rights for the protection of which it has access to administrative or judicial procedures under Article 9(3) of the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, which was approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2015 (‘the Aarhus Convention’)?
               If question 1 is answered in the affirmative:

               2.

               Is it necessary under the provisions of the Aarhus Convention to be able to assert those rights at the stage of the procedure before the administrative authority or is the possibility of being granted judicial protection against the decision of the administrative authority sufficient?

               3.

               Is it permissible for national procedural law (Paragraph 42 of the AVG) to require the environmental organisation — like other parties — to raise its objections not only in an appeal to the Verwaltungsgericht, but in good time at the stage of the procedure before the administrative authorities, failing which it loses its status as a party and is also no longer able to bring an appeal at the Verwaltungsgericht?

      (1)  Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1).


title: Case C-464/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Palermo — Sezione Distaccata di Bagheria (Italy) lodged on 7 September 2011 — Paola Galioto v Maria Guccione and Others

text:
               19.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 340/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Palermo — Sezione Distaccata di Bagheria (Italy) lodged on 7 September 2011 — Paola Galioto v Maria Guccione and Others
   (Case C-464/11)
   2011/C 340/18
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Palermo — Sezione Distaccata di Bagheria

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Paola Galioto

      Defendants: Maria Guccione, Maria Piera Savona, Fabio Savona

      Questions referred

               1.

               Can Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 2008/52/EC, (1) concerning the effectiveness and competence of mediators, be interpreted as requiring that the mediator should also have legal skills and that the choice of mediator by the person responsible in the body concerned should take account of specific knowledge and professional experience relating to the subject-matter of the dispute?

               2.

               Can Article 1 of Directive 2008/52/EC be interpreted as requiring criteria on the territorial competence of mediation bodies which are intended to facilitate access to alternative dispute resolution and to promote the amicable settlement of disputes?

               3.

               Can Article 1 of Directive 2008/52/EC, concerning the balanced relationship between mediation and judicial proceedings, Article 3(a), recital 10 and recital 13 of Directive 2008/52/EC, concerning the essentially voluntary nature of the mediation process for the parties as regards its organisation and any decision to terminate it, be interpreted as meaning that, where an amicable voluntary settlement is not reached, the mediator may draw up a proposal for conciliation, unless the parties concerned have jointly requested him not to do so (since they consider that they must terminate the mediation process)?’

      (1)  OJ 2008 L 136, p. 3.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) of 24 October 1996 in Case C-172/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratif, Amiens): Société sucrière agricole de Maizy and Société sucrière de Berneuil-sur-Aisne v. Directeur régional des impôts (Common organization of the markets in the sugar sector - Chargeable event for storage, production and elimination levies - Period in respect of which elimination levies are payable)

text:
25 . 1 . 97          EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 26/ 1
                                                                I
                                                         (Information)
                                            COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                      COURT OF JUSTICE
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                the price of goods purchased by a customer who was not
                      ( Sixth Chamber)                             the buyer of the voucher, and who does not normally
                                                                   know the actual price at which the voucher was sold by
                    of 24 October 1996                             the supplier, the consideration represented by the voucher
                                                                   is the sum actually received by the supplier on the sale of
in Case C-288/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from          the voucher.
the VAT and Duties Tribunal): Argos Distributors Ltd v.
           Commissioners of Customs and Excise (')
                                                                   ( J ) OJNoC 380, 31 . 12 . 1994 .
  (Value-added tax — Sixth Directive — Taxable amount)             ( 2 ) OJ No L 145, 13 . 6 . 1977, p. 1 .
                         ( 971C 26/01 )
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
In Case C-288/94: reference to the Court pursuant to
Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the VAT and Duties                                        (Fourth Chamber)
Tribunal, London, for a preliminary ruling in the                                          of 24 October 1996
proceedings pending before that court between Argos
Distributors Limited and Commissioners of Customs and              in Case C-172/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
Excise — on the interpretation of Article 11 of the sixth          the Tribunal Administratif, Amiens ): Société sucrière
Directive, Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977             agricole de Maizy and Société sucrière de Berneuil-sur
on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States                         Aisne v. Directeur régional des impôts i 1 )
relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value               (Common organization of the markets in the sugar
added tax: uniform basis of assessment (2 ) — the Court            sector — Chargeable event for storage, production
( Sixth Chamber), composed of: G. F. Mancini, President            and elimination levies — Period in respect of which
of the Chamber, C. N. Kakouris ( Rapporteur ) and G.                                elimination levies are payable)
Hirsch, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate-General; H. von
Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a                                       97/C 26/02 )
judgment on 24 October 1996 , in which it has ruled:
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Article 11 (A) (1 ) (a) of the sixth Directive, Council
Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating                       published in the European Court Reports)
to turnover taxes — Common system of value-added tax:
uniform basis of assessment, must be interpreted as
meaning that, when a supplier has sold a voucher to a              In Case C-l 72/95 : reference to the Court pursuant to
buyer at a discount and promised subsequently to accept            Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal
that voucher at its face value in full or part payment of          Administratif ( Administrative Court), Amiens ( France ), for
 ---pagebreak--- No c 26 /2            IEN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                       25 . 1 . 97
a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
that court between Societe sucriere agricole de Maizy,                                           (Third Chamber)
Societe     sucriere   de Berneuil-sur-Aisne   and   Directeur
regional des impôts — on the interpretation of the                                            of 24 October 1996
Community rules relating to various levies in the sugar
sector — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: C. N.              in Case C-335/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
Kakouris, acting for the President of the Fourth Chamber             the Cour du travail, Liège ): Institut national d'assurances
                                                                     sociales pour travailleurs indépendants (Inasti ) v. Michel
( Rapporteur ), P. J. G. Kapteyn and H. Ragnemalm,                                                      Picard i 1 )
Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General; H. A. Riihl ,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a              (Social security for migrant workers — Old-age and death
judgment on 24 October 1996 , in which it has ruled:                 insurance — Benefits — Concurrent award of pensions
                                                                     under the legislation of two Member States — Automatic
                                                                     award on submission of a claim to the competent
                                                                     institution of one of the Member States — Claim to be
 1 . Article 8 (2), third subparagraph (a), of Council
                                                                     made to the institution of the Member State of residence
      Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981 on the
      common organization of the markets in the sugar                    in order to obtain award of both pensions concurrently)
      sector and Article 6 (4) of Council Regulation (EEC)                                           ( 97/C 26/03 )
      No 1358/77 of 20 June 1977 laying down general
      rules for offsetting storage costs for sugar and
      repealing Regulation (EEC) No 750/68 must be                                       (Language of the case: French)
      interpreted as meaning that the prescribed conditions
      for materialization of the obligation to pay the storage
      levy are satisfied when the sugar is disposed of.                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
 2 . Article 28 (3) and (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/              In Case C-335/95 : reference to the Court pursuant to
      81 must be interpreted as meaning that the prescribed           Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Cour du travail
      conditions for materialization of the obligation to pay         ( Labour Court), Liege ( Belgium ), for a preliminary ruling
      the production levies thereby imposed are satisfied             in the proceedings pending before that court between
      when sugar production is calculated at the end of each          Institut national d'assurances sociales pour travailleurs
      marketing year.                                                 independants (Inasti ) and Michel Picard — on the
                                                                      interpretation of Article 36 of Regulation (EEC) No 574/
                                                                      72 of the Council of 21 March 1972 laying down the
  3 . Article 32a (1 ) of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 , as            procedure for implementing Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/
      amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 934/86 of                71 on the application of social security schemes to
       24 March 1986, and Article 1 (I ) of Commission                employed persons, self-employed persons and members of
       Regulation (EEC) No 3046/86 of 3 October 1986                  their families moving within the Community, as amended
       laying down detailed rules concerning the collection of         and updated by Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2001 /83 of
       the elimination levy in the sugar sector must be                2 June 1983 ( 2) — the Court (Third Chamber), composed
       interpreted as meaning that the prescribed conditions           of: J. C. Moitinho de Almeida ( Rapporteur), President of
       for materialization of the obligation to pay the                the Chamber, C. Gulmann and J. -P. Puissochet, Judges; A.
       elimination levy are satisfied when sugar production is         La Pergola, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
       calculated at the end of each of the marketing years            given a judgment on 24 October 1996 , in which it has
       from 1986/87 to 1990/91 .                                       ruled :
                                                                       Article 36 (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of the
  4 . Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1914/87 of               Council of 21 March 1972 laying down the procedure for
       2 July 1987 introducing a special elimination levy in            implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the
        the sugar sector for the 1986/87 marketing year and            application of social security schemes to employed
       Articles 1 and 2 of Commission Regulation (EEC)                  persons, self-employed persons and members of their
        No 3061 /87 of 13 October 1987 fixing the coefficient           families moving within the Community, as amended and
        for the calculation of the special elimination levy in          updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001 /83 of
        the sugar sector for the 1986/87 marketing year must            2 June 1983, which provides for the concurrent award of
        be interpreted as meaning that the prescribed                   benefits when a claim for benefits is submitted to an
        conditions for materialization of the obligation to pay         institution of a Member State, lays down an independent
        the special elimination levy are satisfied when sugar           procedural rule which applies regardless of whether the
        production is calculated at the end of the 1986/87              provisions of Article 36 (1 ) to (3) have been complied
        marketing year.                                                 with .
   (M OJ No C 189, 22 . 7. 1995 .                                        ( 1 ) OJ No C 351 , 30 . 12 . 1995 .
                                                                         ( 2 ) OJ No L 230, 22 . 8 . 1983 , p . 86 .


title: Case C-505/16 P: Appeal brought on 23 September 2016 by Olga Stanislavivna Yanukovych, as heir of Viktor Viktorovych Yanukovych against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2016 in Case T-347/14: Olga Stanislavivna Yanukovych v Council of the European Union

text:
               28.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 441/11

      Appeal brought on 23 September 2016 by Olga Stanislavivna Yanukovych, as heir of Viktor Viktorovych Yanukovych against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2016 in Case T-347/14: Olga Stanislavivna Yanukovych v Council of the European Union
      (Case C-505/16 P)
      (2016/C 441/15)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: Olga Stanislavivna Yanukovych, as heir of Viktor Viktorovych Yanukovych (represented by: T. Beazley QC)

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

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  set aside the Order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) dated 12 July 2016 in Case T-347/14 to the extent particularised in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the appeal, namely:

                              —

                              paragraphs 2 and 4 of the operative part of that Order;

                              —

                              paragraph 3 of the operative part of the Order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) dated 12 July 2016 in Case T-347/14 to the extent that the Court considers that the same paragraph 3 requires the Council of the European Union to pay only the costs incurred by the Appellant but not the costs incurred by the Deceased;

                  —

                  remit the case to the General Court for hearing and judgment or alternatively:

                              —

                              grant the relief sought by the Appellant in the proceedings before the General Court to the extent particularised in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the appeal, namely to annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/143 (1) of 29 January 2015 amending Decision 2014/119, Council Regulation (EU) 2015/138 (2) of 29 January 2015 amending Regulation No 208/2014, Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/364 (3) of 5 March 2015 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/357 (4) of 5 March 2015 implementing Regulation No 208/2014, in so far as those measures concern Viktor Viktorovych Yanukovych and

                              —

                              to the extent that the Court considers that the General Court has not already done so, order the Council of the European Union to pay both the Appellant’s costs and the costs incurred by the Deceased in relation to the claim for annulment made in the Application;

                              —

                              order the Council of the European Union to pay the Appellant’s costs, to include those incurred by the Deceased, in relation to the claim for annulment made in the Statement of Modification;

                  —

                  in any event, order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      First, the General Court erred in law in concluding, at paragraphs 84, 89 and 92 of the Contested Order, that the Statement of Modification was inadmissible because it was lodged in the name of the Deceased after his death. The Court wrongly concluded that in the circumstances of this case the admissibility of the Statement of Modification was to be solely assessed by reference to the situation at the time the Statement of Modification was lodged. Rather, the admissibility of the Statement of Modification ought to have been assessed holistically by reference to all of the circumstances of the case.
      Secondly, even if the General Court was correct in its conclusion that the admissibility of the Statement of Modification was to be solely assessed by reference to the situation at the time at which it was lodged, the General Court erred in law in concluding that the Statement of Modification was not, in substance, presented in the name of the Appellant. The Statement of Modification, read in the context of the other material with which the General Court was presented, clearly showed that it was lodged in the Deceased’s name by/on behalf of the Appellant in her capacity as the de facto successor and heir to the Deceased. As such, it was admissible by reference to the factual situation at the time it was lodged. In reaching the contrary conclusion, the General Court erred in law by distorting the evidence that was before it.
      Thirdly, the General Court erred in law since it failed to distinguish between (i) the admissibility of the Statement of Modification and (ii) the admissibility of a Second Annulment Application. The General Court: (1) wrongly failed to take into account the fact that it had granted a stay in relation to the Statement of Modification; (2) wrongly concluded that the admissibility of the Statement of Modification should be decided by reference solely to the situation prevailing at the time when the Statement of Modification was lodged; (3) wrongly ignored the fact that Ukrainian succession law determines the successor six months after death but with retrospective effect, and (4) as a result, wrongly and without any justification, deprived the Appellant of access to court to challenge the 2015 Acts as successor and heir or otherwise.

         (1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/143 of 29 January 2015 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine

         OJ L 24, p. 16

         (2)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/138 of 29 January 2015 amending Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine

         OJ L 24, p. 1

         (3)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/364 of 5 March 2015 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine

         OJ L 62, p. 25

         (4)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/357 of 5 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine

         OJ L 62, p. 1


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 October 2000 in Case C-458/98 P: Industrie des Poudres Sphériques v Council of the European Union (Appeal — Anti-dumping — Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 — Calcium metal — Admissibility — Re-opening of an anti-dumping procedure after annulment of the regulation adopting an anti-dumping duty — Right to a fair hearing)

text:
25.11.2000                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 335/19
The application, on a unilateral basis, by a group of healthcare            1.    Dismisses the appeal;
providers to EC officials of scales of fees for medical and hospital
maternity care which are higher than those applicable to residents          2.    Orders Industrie des Poudres Sphériques to pay the costs;
affiliated to the national social security scheme constitutes discrimi-
nation on the ground of nationality prohibited under the first
paragraph of Article 6 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, the          3.    Orders Péchiney Électrométallurgie, the Chambre Syndicale de
first paragraph of Article 12 EC), in the absence of objective                    l’Électrométallurgie et de l’Électrochimie and the Commission of
justification in this respect.                                                    the European Communities each to bear their own costs.
(1) OJ C 20 of 23.1.1999.                                                   (1) OJ C 48, 20.2.1999, p. 17.
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (Fifth Chamber)
                          of 3 October 2000                                                            (Sixth Chamber)
in Case C-458/98 P: Industrie des Poudres Sphériques v                                               of 3 October 2000
                Council of the European Union (1)
                                                                            in Case C-9/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
(Appeal — Anti-dumping — Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88                        the Cour d’Appel de Grenoble, France): Échirolles Distri-
— Calcium metal — Admissibility — Re-opening of an                              bution SA v Association du Dauphiné and Others (1)
anti-dumping procedure after annulment of the regulation
 adopting an anti-dumping duty — Right to a fair hearing)
                                                                                (National legislation on book prices)
                            (2000/C 335/34)
                                                                                (2000/C 335/35)
                      (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
In Case C-458/98 P: Industrie des Poudres Sphériques, estab-                                    in the European Court Reports)
lished in Annemasse (France), represented by C. Momège, of
the Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of A. May, 398 Route d’Esch — appeal against the                   In Case C-9/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European                     the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Cour d’Appel
Communities (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) of                        (Court of Appeal), Grenoble, for a preliminary ruling in the
15 October 1998 in Case T-2/95 Industries des Poudres                       proceedings pending before that court between Échirolles
Sphériques v Council [1998] ECR II-3939, seeking to have                    Distribution SA and Association du Dauphiné and Others —
that judgment set aside, the other parties to the proceedings               on the interpretation of Articles 3(c) and (g) of the EC Treaty
being: Council of the European Union (Agents: S. Marquardt                  (now, after amendment, Article 3(c) and (g) EC), 3a and 5 of
assisted by P. Bentley) Commission of the European Communi-                 the EC Treaty (now Articles 4 EC and 10 EC), the second
ties, (Agents: N. Khan and X. Lewis) Péchiney Électrométallur-             paragraph of Article 7a of the EC Treaty (now, after amend-
gie, established in Courbevoie (France) Chambre Syndicale de                ment, the second paragraph of Article 14 EC) and Articles
l’Électrométallurgie et de l’Électrochimie, established in Paris          102a and 103(3) and (4) of the EC Treaty (now Articles 98 EC
(France), represented by O. d’Ormesson and O. Prost, of                     and 99(3) and (4) EC) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed
the Paris Bar — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:                     of: J.C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rapporteur), President of the
D.A.O. Edward, President of the Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn,                    Chamber, R. Schintgen, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet and
A. La Pergola, P. Jann and H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur), Judges;               V. Skouris, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; D. Louterman-
G. Cosmas, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a               Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 3 October 2000, in which it:                                    judgment on 3 October 2000, in which it has ruled:


title: Case T-729/16: Action brought on 17 October 2016 — PO and Others v EEAS

text:
               19.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 475/19

         Action brought on 17 October 2016 — PO and Others v EEAS
   (Case T-729/16)
   (2016/C 475/29)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: PO (Brussels, Belgium), PP (Beijing, China), PQ (Beijing), PR (Beijing) (represented by: N. de Montigny and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European External Action Service

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul:

                           —

                           the decisions of 17 December 2015 to limit to EUR 10 000 the school fees incurred by the applicants;

                           —

                           given the specific context of the notification of the measure adversely affecting the applicants, in so far as necessary, the email of 21 December 2015, which some of them received; in so far as necessary, the allowance evaluation form; and, last, in so far as necessary, their payslips mentioning the amount of the allowance received;

                           —

                           as necessary, last, the rejections of their claims of 5 July 2016;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: a plea of illegality, in so far as the contested decisions are based on the Guidelines, adopted by the European External Action Service (EEAS) on 31 July 2014, which infringe the Staff Regulations and Annex X thereto.

               2.

               Second plea in law: a plea of illegality, in so far as the contested decisions infringe those Guidelines.

               3.

               Third plea in law: divided into four parts, based on the illegality of the individual decisions.

                           —

                           The first part alleges infringement of acquired rights, breach of legitimate expectations, and infringement of the principles of legal certainty and of sound administration, in so far as each of the applicants decided to be accompanied by his or her family on delegation to the country concerned, proceeding on the assumption that school fees would be reimbursed in full.

                           —

                           The second part alleges infringement of the principles of equal treatment and of non-discrimination, in so far as a system of supplementary reimbursement limited to a flat-rate payment of EUR 10 000, established independently of the specific situation of each delegation, amounts to treating different situations in an identical manner.

                           —

                           The third part alleges infringement of the rights of the child, and of the right to family life and the right to education, in so far as the EEAS imposes a heavy financial burden on certain households of officials or temporary agents, those families being then obliged to decide whether to bear that burden in order to provide their children with an education equivalent to that of the children of their colleagues, or to separate and provide such an education, at a lower cost, in one of the countries of the European Union.

                           —

                           The fourth part alleges that there has been no effective weighing-up of interests and that there has been a failure to observe the principle of proportionality in each adopted decision, particularly in so far as the defendant has failed to show that the objective pursued justified the infringement of the applicants’ fundamental rights.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging an error of assessment, which is invoked by three of the applicants. Two of them take the view that such an error was made in the analysis of the exceptional circumstances which had been put forward in their applications for reimbursement, while the last applicant considers such an error to have arisen from the failure to take into account the additional costs of teaching in the mother tongue.


title: Case C-111/09: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 May 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Okresní soud v Chebu — Czech Republic) — Česká podnikatelská pojišťovna as, Vienna Insurance Group v Michal Bilas (Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Action brought by an insurer before the court of its place of domicile seeking the payment of an insurance premium by the policyholder, domiciled in a different Member State — Appearance of the defendant entered before the court seised — Jurisdiction not contested and defence as to substance — Entering an appearance conferring jurisdiction)

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/11

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 May 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Okresní soud v Chebu — Czech Republic) — Česká podnikatelská pojišťovna as, Vienna Insurance Group v Michal Bilas
   (Case C-111/09) (1)

   (Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Action brought by an insurer before the court of its place of domicile seeking the payment of an insurance premium by the policyholder, domiciled in a different Member State - Appearance of the defendant entered before the court seised - Jurisdiction not contested and defence as to substance - Entering an appearance conferring jurisdiction)
   2010/C 179/17
   Language of the case: Czech

      Referring court

   Okresní soud v Chebu

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Česká podnikatelská pojišťovna as, Vienna Insurance Group

      Defendant: Michal Bilas

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Okresní soud v Cheb — Interpretation of Articles 13(1), 24 and 26 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Jurisdiction in insurance matters — Action seeking the payment of an insurance premium by the policyholder, domiciled in a different Member State from the insurer — Defence of the policyholder’s case as to substance in the forum of the insurer’s domicile.

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 24 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 seised, where the rules in Section 3 of Chapter II of that regulation were not complied with, must declare itself to have jurisdiction where the defendant enters an appearance and does not contest that court’s jurisdiction, since entering an appearance in that way amounts to a tacit prorogation of jurisdiction.

      (1)  OJ C 141, 20.06.2009.


title: Case C-225/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the First Civil Chamber of the Tribunale Civile di Genova by order of that court of 24 May 2001 in the joined cases of Off-road Action Sas and Model Toys di Luca Luperini against Prefetto di Genova

text:
C 227/12                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      11.8.2001
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Østre Landsret,                Question 3
by decision of that court of 23 May 2001 in the case
of AstraZeneca A/S v Lægemiddelstyrelsen, intervener:                    If Questions 1(b) or 1(c) are answered in the affirmative, does
Generics (UK) Ltd, and in the case of A/S GEA Farmaceut-                 the first medicinal products directive contain a legal basis
isk Fabrik v Lægemiddelstyrelsen, joined party: Sund-                    for enabling the national authorities to dispense with the
hedsministeriet, interveners: Generics (UK) Ltd and Astra-               requirements in question so that an abridged application can
                            Zeneca A/S                                   nevertheless be examined as to its substance?
                          (Case C-223/01)                                (1) of 26 January 1965 on the approximation of provisions laid
                                                                             down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to
                                                                             proprietary medicinal products (OJ, English Special Edition,
                                                                             1965/1966, p. 20).
                          (2001/C 227/19)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by decision of the Østre Landsret of
23 June 2001, received at the Court Registry on 5 June 2001,
for a preliminary ruling in the cases of AstraZeneca A/S and             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the First Civil
A/S GEA Farmaceutisk Fabrik v Lægemiddelstyrelsen, joined                Chamber of the Tribunale Civile di Genova by order of
party: Sundhedsministriet, intervener: Generics (UK) Ltd, on             that court of 24 May 2001 in the joined cases of Off-road
the following questions:                                                 Action Sas and Model Toys di Luca Luperini against
                                                                                Prefetto di Genova
                                                                                (Case C-225/01)
Question 1
                                                                                (2001/C 227/20)
In a case where an undertaking applies for marketing authoris-           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
ation on the basis of an abridged application (simplified                European Communities by order of the First Civil Chamber of
procedure) under Article 4, third paragraph, point 8(a)(iii)             the Tribunale Civile, (Civil District Court), Genoa, of 24 May
of the first medicinal products directive (Council Directive             2001, received at the Court Registry on 6 June 2001, for a
65/65/EEC (1) as subsequently amended) and states that the               preliminary ruling in the joined cases of Off-road Action Sas
product for which marketing authorisation is sought is essen-            and Model Toys di Luca Luperini against the Prefetto di Genova
tially similar to a reference product which has been approved            on the following questions:
in the Community for the necessary period of time pursuant
to the directive, is it necessary and sufficient that the reference      —     In the light of the principles of the free movement of
product:                                                                       goods and of proportionality, does Community law
                                                                               preclude in all cases the application of national legislation
                                                                               under which the confiscation of goods is applied by way
(a)   at the time of the application has been marketed in the
                                                                               of secondary penalty for any infringement of administrat-
      Member State for which the application is made, or
                                                                               ive regulations governing the importation of such goods
                                                                               into Italian territory, for trade, use or exploitation; or is
(b) at the time of the application is still being marketed in                  that penalty compatible with Community law in certain
      the Member State for which the application is made, or                   circumstances, because of the seriousness of the offence
                                                                               or the importance of the legal good which the rule
(c)   is still being marketed at the time of the application and               infringed seeks to protect?
      at the time of notification of marketing authorisation in
      the Member State for which the application is made?                —     In the light of the principle of proportionality, does
                                                                               Community law preclude the application of national
                                                                               legislation which does not confer on the administrative
                                                                               authorities or the courts any discretion — having regard
                                                                               to the seriousness of the offence or the importance of the
Question 2                                                                     legal good which the rule infringed seeks to protect — in
                                                                               deciding whether or not to order the confiscation of
                                                                               goods, that being the secondary penalty prescribed for any
                                                                               infringement of the administrative regulations govern-
Does the term ‘marketed’ in Article 4, third paragraph,                        ing the manufacture, use, carriage, holding or alienation
point 8(a)(iii) mean that it is sufficient and necessary that there            of such goods within Italian territory?
be approval in the form of marketing authorisation for the
reference product in the Member State for which the appli-
cation is made?


16.2.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 44/29
—     In the alternative, annul the present procedure and order                Removal from the Register of Case T-102/99 (1)
      a fresh procedure;
                                                                                (2002/C 44/50)
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          By order of 9 November 2001, the President of the Fourth
                                                                         Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
The applicant contests the decision of the selection board for           Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of
General Competition COM/B/1/0, organised by the Com-                     Case T-102/99: L v Commission of the European Communi-
mission with a view to constituting a reserve list of assistants         ties.
at Grade B 5/B 4 in the field of customs (1), not to mark the
tests sat by the applicant on 6 July 2001 on the ground that             (1) OJ C 188, 3.7.99.
he did not have sufficient professional experience as required
by Point III.B.2 of the competition notice.
The applicant claims that he has the professional experience
required by the competition notice, as attested when he                         Removal from the Register of Case T-68/01 (1)
submitted his application, and that the contested decision does
not comply with the requirement to give reasons and is                                           (2002/C 44/51)
contrary to the principle of equality of treatment. The applicant
further argues that inviting the candidates to tests and to then                           (Language of the case: German)
check whether the conditions laid down for the competition
have been met amounts to an inadequate procedure which
runs counter to the principles of sound administration and of
legal certainty and deprives those candidates who have been              By order of 5 November 2001, the President of the Second
excluded of their rights of defence.                                     Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance
                                                                         of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                         the Register of Case T-68/01: Huber + Suhner MRS GmbH v
(1) OJ C 24A, p. 22.                                                     Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 212, 28.7.01.


title: Case T-581/15: Order of the General Court of 25 May 2016 — Syndial v Commission (Action for annulment — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to an infringement procedure against Italy — Possible non-compliance with Directives 2011/92/EU and 1999/13/EC — Reclamation of a former industrial site (Cengio-Saliceto) — Refusal of access — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               18.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/41

         Order of the General Court of 25 May 2016 — Syndial v Commission
   (Case T-581/15) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to an infringement procedure against Italy - Possible non-compliance with Directives 2011/92/EU and 1999/13/EC - Reclamation of a former industrial site (Cengio-Saliceto) - Refusal of access - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
   (2016/C 260/51)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Syndial SpA — Attività Diversificate (San Donato Milanese, Italy) (represented by: L. Acquarone and S. Grassi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and D. Nardi, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision of 3 August 2015 refusing to grant the applicant access to the documents concerning the procedure relating to a possible failure on the part of the Italian Republic to comply with its obligations under Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 2012 L 26, p. 1) and under Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Syndial SpA — Attività Diversificate shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 398, 30.11.2015.


title: Case T-50/11: Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2012 — Fraas v OHIM (Tartan pattern in dark grey, light grey, black, beige, dark red and light red) (Community trade mark — Application for a figurative Community trade mark representing a tartan pattern in dark grey, light grey, black, beige, dark red and light red — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b), Article 75 and Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               27.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/21

      Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2012 — Fraas v OHIM (Tartan pattern in dark grey, light grey, black, beige, dark red and light red)
      (Case T-50/11) (1)

      (Community trade mark - Application for a figurative Community trade mark representing a tartan pattern in dark grey, light grey, black, beige, dark red and light red - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b), Article 75 and Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
      (2012/C 331/36)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: V. Fraas GmbH (Helmbrechts-Wüstenselbitz, Germany) (represented by: R. Kunze and G. Würtenberger, lawyers)

         Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented: initially by B. Schmidt then D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 November 2010 (Case R 1316/2010-4) concerning an application for registration of a figurative sign representing a tartan pattern in dark grey, light grey, black, beige, dark red and light red as a Community trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders V. Fraas GmbH to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 89, 19.3.2011.


title: Case T-37/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 1 July 2008 — Região autónoma dos Açores v Council (Action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 — Fisheries — Management of the fishing effort — Community fishing areas and resources — Action brought by a regional body — Persons individually concerned — Inadmissibility)

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/42

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 1 July 2008 — Região autónoma dos Açores v Council
   (Case T-37/04) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 - Fisheries - Management of the fishing effort - Community fishing areas and resources - Action brought by a regional body - Persons individually concerned - Inadmissibility)
   (2008/C 209/71)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Região autónoma dos Açores (Portugal) (represented initially by: M. Renouf, S. Crosby, C. Bryant, Solicitors, and H. Mercer, Barrister, and subsequently by M. Renouf, C. Bryant and H. Mercer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J. Monteiro and F. Florindo Gijón, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicants: Seas at Risk VZW, formerly Stichting Seas at Risk Federation (Brussels, Belgium); WWF — World Wide Fund for Nature, (Gland, Switzerland); and Stichting Greenpeace Council (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: R. Buxton, Solicitor, and D. Owen, Barrister).

      Interveners in support of the defendants: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: T. van Rijn and B. Doherty, acting as Agents) and Kingdom of Spain, (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, abogado del Estado)
   Re:
   Action seeking artial annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 of 4 November 2003 on the management of the fishing effort relating to certain Community fishing areas and resources and modifying Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 and repealing Regulations (EC) No 685/95 and (EC) No 2027/95 (OJ 2003 L 289, p. 1)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action as inadmissible.

               2.

               Orders Região autónoma dos Açores to bear its own costs and pay those of the Council, including those incurred in the interim proceedings.

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain and the Commission to bear their own costs, including those incurred in the interim proceedings.

               4.

               Orders Seas at Risk VZW and WWF — World Wide Fund for Nature to bear their own costs, including those incurred in the interim proceedings.

               5.

               Orders Stichting Greenpeace Council to bear its own costs as incurred in the present proceedings.

               6.

               Orders Porto de Abrigo — Organização de Produtores da Pesca CRL and GÊ-Questa — Associação de Defesa do Ambiente to bear their own costs as incurred in the interim proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 94, 17.4.2004.