title: Case C-186/06: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of  18 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 79/409/EEC — Conservation of wild birds — Irrigable area of the Segarra-Garrigues Canal (Lleida))

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/14

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-186/06) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 79/409/EEC - Conservation of wild birds - Irrigable area of the Segarra-Garrigues Canal (Lleida))
   (2008/C 51/23)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Recchia and A. Alcover San Pedro, Agents,)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: F. Díez Moreno, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Articles 2, 3 and 4(1) and (4) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1) — Plan to irrigate the irrigable area of the Segarra-Garrigues Canal (Lleida)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by authorising the irrigation project in the irrigable area of the Segarra-Garrigues Canal in the Province of Lleida, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first sentence of Article 4(4) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds to take appropriate measures to avoid, in the areas affected by that project which ought to have been classified as special protection areas, the prohibited disturbances;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 154, 1.7.2006.


title: Case T-53/10: Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2011 — Reisenthel v OHIM — Dynamic Promotion (Hampers, crates and baskets) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity by the Invalidity Division — Notification of the Invalidity Division’s decision by fax — Appeal before the Board of Appeal — Written statement setting out the grounds of appeal — Period for submission — Admissibility of the appeal — Article 57 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Correction of a decision — Article 39 of Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002 — General principle of law authorising the withdrawal of an unlawful decision)

text:
               26.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/29

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2011 — Reisenthel v OHIM — Dynamic Promotion (Hampers, crates and baskets)
   (Case T-53/10) (1)

   (Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity by the Invalidity Division - Notification of the Invalidity Division’s decision by fax - Appeal before the Board of Appeal - Written statement setting out the grounds of appeal - Period for submission - Admissibility of the appeal - Article 57 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Correction of a decision - Article 39 of Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002 - General principle of law authorising the withdrawal of an unlawful decision)
   2011/C 347/45
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Peter Reisenthel (Gilching, Germany) (represented by: E.A. Busse, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: initially by S. Schäffner, and subsequently by R. Manea and G. Schneider, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Dynamic Promotion Co. Ltd (Bangkok, Thailand)

      Re:

   ACTION brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 November 2009, as corrected by the decision of 10 December 2009 (Case R 621/2009-3), and against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 March 2010 (Case R 621/2009-3), concerning invalidity proceedings between Peter Reisenthel and Dynamic Promotion Co. Ltd.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 22 March 2010 (Case R 621/2009-3) insofar as it concerns Peter Reisenthel’s request for correction of 23 December 2009;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.


title: Case C-103/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht Hagen by order of that Court of 11 February 2003 in proceedings relating to the commercial register concerning Betriebsgesellschaft Radio Ennepe-Ruhr-Kreis mbh & Co. KG; Person concerned: Mr Hans-Jürgen Weske

text:
10.5.2003               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                             C 112/13
The Commission takes the view that, contrary to the arguments             (Regional Court, Hagen) of 11 February 2003, received at the
put forward by the Portuguese authorities, Council Regulation             Court Registry on 5 March 2003, for a preliminary ruling in
(EEC) No 259/93 (3) enables the competent authorities to ban              proceedings relating to the commercial register concerning
the exportation of waste oils intended for recovery operations,           Betriebsgesellschaft Radio Ennepe-Ruhr-Kreis mbh & Co. KG;
in particular energy recovery (or burning for energy recovery).           Person concerned: Mr Hans-Jürgen Weske on the following
                                                                          questions:
So far as concerns economic constraints which, in the view of
the Portuguese Government, do not make it possible to deal                1.    Was the European Community entitled to take
with waste oil in such a way as to attribute priority to                        Article 54(1), in conjunction with Article 54(3)(g), of the
regeneration of such waste, there is a contradiction between                    EC Treaty (old version) as a basis when it adopted Council
the quantities of waste oil which the Portuguese authorities                    Directive 90/605/EEC of 8 November 1990 amending
claim to be available annually and those which the economic                     Directive 78/660/EEC on annual accounts and Directive
operators claim to be necessary to guarantee the viability of a                 83/349/EEC on consolidated accounts as regards the
waste oil regeneration plant in Portugal. In any event, even if                 scope of those Directives, even though Directive 90/605/
the Portuguese authorities were able to prove that the mini-                    EEC also grants inspection rights to third parties which
mum limit to make the setting-up of a regeneration plant                        do not require protection?
economically viable is, normally, for between 60 000 and
80 000 tonnes of waste oil to be available annually, it would
have to be considered that deficiencies in monitoring the use
to which waste oil is put and in the collection of such oil               2.    Is Directive 90/605/EEC, in conjunction with Article 47
(according to the Portuguese authorities, collection in 1999                    of Directive 78/660/EEC, compatible with the fundamen-
was in the order of 60 %) are decisive contributing factors for                 tal Community right of freedom to exercise a trade or
the conditions not being met for attributing priority to                        profession in so far as Kommanditgesellschaften (limited
treatment by regeneration and, in particular, for setting up in                 partnerships) whose personally liable partner is a private
Portugal at least one regeneration plant.                                       limited company are obliged to publish their annual
                                                                                accounts and annual report, in particular without any
                                                                                restriction being imposed on the group of persons entitled
Finally, so far as concerns the alleged difficulty in finding                   to inspect those documents?
private investors willing to bear the high level of investment
necessary for the construction of regeneration units, the
Portuguese authorities could have adopted a number of                     3.    Is Directive 90/605/EEC ( 1), in conjunction with
incentive measures including a subsidy for regeneration in                      Article 47 of Directive 78/660/EEC, compatible with the
compliance with Article 14 of Directive 75/439/EEC, as                          fundamental Community rights of freedom of the press
amended by Directive 87/101/EEC.                                                and radio in so far as Kommanditgesellschaften whose
                                                                                personally liable partner is a private limited company and
                                                                                which are engaged in the press and publishing sector or
( 1) OJ 1975 L 194, p. 23.                                                      the radio broadcasting sector are obliged to publish their
( 2) OJ 1987 L 42, p. 43.                                                       annual accounts and annual report, in particular without
( 3) Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the               any restriction being imposed on the group of persons
     supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and             entitled to inspect those documents?
     out of the European Community, OJ 1993 L 30, p. 1.
                                                                          4.    Is Directive 90/605/EEC compatible with the general
                                                                                principle of equality in so far as it places at a disadvantage
                                                                                those Kommanditgesellschaften whose personally liable
                                                                                partner is a private limited company as compared with
                                                                                Kommanditgesellschaften whose personally liable partner
                                                                                is a natural person, even though creditors of a GmbH &
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht                           Co. KG [a limited partnership in which the unlimited
Hagen by order of that Court of 11 February 2003 in                             partner is a private limited company] are better protected
proceedings relating to the commercial register concern-                        by the duty of disclosure imposed on private limited
ing Betriebsgesellschaft Radio Ennepe-Ruhr-Kreis mbh &                          companies than are creditors of a Kommanditgesellschaft
      Co. KG; Person concerned: Mr Hans-Jürgen Weske                            whose personally liable partner, as a natural person, is
                                                                                not under any duties of disclosure?
                          (Case C-103/03)
                          (2003/C 112/22)
                                                                          (1 ) OJ L 317 of 16.11.1990, p. 60.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Landgericht Hagen


title: Action brought on 9 October 1996 by Stadt Mainz against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-155/96)

text:
No C 354/34            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   23 . 11 . 96
    is confined exclusively to officials of the European               Action brought on 9 October 1996 by Stadt Mainz against
    Communities who are in the service of the European                        the Commission of the European Communities
    Parliament, and, consequently,                                                             Case T-155/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 354/66 )
— annul the decision of the Court of Justice rejecting the
    applicants ' request that their names be entered on the list
    of persons having manifested their interest in being the                         (Language of the case: German)
    subject of a decision terminating their services as a result
    of the accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden,
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities was brought before the Court of First
— order the Court of Justice to pay the costs .                        Instance of the European Communities on 9 October 1996
                                                                       by Stadt Mainz ( City of Mainz ), Federal Republic of
                                                                       Germany, represented by Martin Heidenhain, Bernhard
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    Maassen, Cord-Georg Hasselmann and Horst Satzky,
                                                                       Rechtsanwalte, of Messrs Hengeler Mueller Weitzel Wirtz,
The applicants maintain that the decision rejecting their              Berlin, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
requests and, so far as may be necessary, the decision                 chambers of Jean Hoss, of Messrs Hoss & Prussen, 15 Cote
rejecting their complaints are unlawful inasmuch as they               d'Eich .
apply a regulation which is in itself unlawful, namely
Council Regulation No 2688/95 of 17 November 1995
introducing special measures to terminate the service of               The applicant claims that the Court should:
officials of the European Communities . The applicants
consider that Regulation to be unlawful in that it applies             — annul the decision of the European Commission of
solely to officials of the European Communities who are in                  17 July 1996 concerning the grant of State aid by the
the service of the European Parliament.                                    City of Mainz to the property management company
                                                                           Fort Malakoff Mainz GmbH & Co . KG ( State aid No
They consider that this restriction of the scope of the                    C 64/94, ex NN 2/93 ),
Regulation constitutes an infringement of Article 24 of the
Merger Treaty, Article 210 of the EC Treaty, Article C of the          — order the European Commission to pay the costs .
Union Treaty and Article 1 of the Staff Regulations of
Officials, which lay down the principle of the unity of the
Community civil service . It also contravenes the principle of         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
equal treatment of and non-discrimination between officials
in that its result is to treat officials differently even though
they are in the same situation .                                       The applicant contests the decision of the European
                                                                       Commission of 17 July 1996 declaring that the sale to the
                                                                       property management company Fort Malakoff GmbH &
Secondly, the applicants plead infringement of essential               Co . KG, a subsidiary of Siemens AG/Siemens Nixdorf
procedural requirements, and more specifically failure to              Informationssysteme AG, of a piece of property located in
comply with the procedure laid down in Article 10 of the               the City of Mainz at a price below its market value
Staff Regulations and Article 24 of the Merger Treaty for all          constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 92 ( 1 ) of
amendments of the Staff Regulations, in so far as the                  the EC Treaty amounting to DM 4 904 725 . According to
Commission's proposal, on the basis of which the                       the said decision, the aid is unlawful, since it was granted in
Regulation at issue was adopted, was not submitted to the              breach of Article 93 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty. Furthermore, the
Staff Regulations Committee, or to the European                        aid is not compatible with the common market, because it
Parliament, or to the Court of Justice or to the Court of              does not fulfil the criteria governing the exceptions and
Auditors .                                                             exemptions provided for in Article 92 ( 2 ) and ( 3 ).
Thirdly, they plead breach of the duty to state reasons as laid        The applicant submits that, although the decision of the
down in Article 190 of the EC Treaty and point out that the            European Commission is addressed to the Federal Republic
sole argument put forward to justify the contested                     of Germany, it is of direct concern to the City of Mainz, as
restriction in the recitals in the preamble to the Regulation is       the alleged grantor of the aid, since it will be obliged, if the
incorrect .                                                            decision were upheld, to reclaim the aid allegedly
                                                                       granted .
Lastly, they consider that the Regulation in question is the
result of a deliberate intention to favour one institution to          The applicant further contends that the agreed sale price
the detriment of the others and of the interests of the service,       falls within the price margin applying to comparable
which constitutes a misuse of powers .                                 properties with comparable characteristics situated in
                                                                       comparable locations, as established, moreover, by an
                                                                       independent committee of experts . Consequently, the
                                                                       applicant clearly cannot be said to have granted State aid to
                                                                       Fort Malakoff. The agreements concluded between the
 ---pagebreak--- 23 . 11 . 96       I EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 354/35
parties to the contract for the sale of the property constitute      cabinet to which he was attached. The applicant states in
a commercially viable compromise of the type arrived at by           that regard that he had himself requested the administration
reasonable parties to transactions effected in the ordinary          for assurances to that effect, having regard to the amount of
course of business . The contested decision therefore has no         the sum in question, and that over one year had elapsed
legal basis in Article 92 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty and should          before the department concerned had discovered the
consequently be annulled for that reason alone .                     existence of a possible error.
Furthermore, the decision infringes Article 190 of the EC
Treaty, in that it does not contain a sufficiently clear and         The applicant maintains, first, that Article 45 of the
unambiguous statement of reasons .                                   Conditions of Employment of Other Servants and Article 85
                                                                     of the Staff Regulations have been infringed, in that the
                                                                     criteria for the recovery of undue payments are not fulfilled
                                                                     in the present case . The Commission did not pay the
                                                                     allowance by mistake but with full knowledge of the facts,
                                                                     applying a practice by which it had established a system for
Action brought on 9 October 1996 by Claus Jensen against             the payment of advances subject to recovery thereof on
      the Commission of the European Communities                     certain conditions. Nor, second, was there any question of
                      ( Case T-156/96 )                              his having acted in bad faith since, as far as the
                        ( 96/C 354/67 )                              administration was concerned, the payment was not undue
                                                                     at the time when it was made and the applicant cannot
               (Language of the case: French)                        therefore be regarded as having been aware of any
                                                                     irregularity whatsoever. He considers in that regard that it
                                                                     appears necessary to interpret Article 85 of the Staff
An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Regulations as not excluding cases of bad faith other than
Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                     those involving awareness of the irregularity of the payment.
Instance of the European Communities on 9 October 1996
                                                                     In any event, according to the applicant, the Commission
by Claus Jensen, residing at Waterloo ( Belgium ),
                                                                     has not proved that, in the circumstances of the case, he was
represented by Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liege Bar, with an
                                                                     aware , when the installation allowance was paid to him,
address for service in Luxembourg at the chambers of
                                                                     that that payment was irregular or that it had to fulfil certain
Evelyne Korn, 21 Rue de Nassau .                                     conditions in order to become definitive .
The applicant claims that the Court should :                         In addition, the applicant pleads infringement of Article 24
                                                                     of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, since
— order measures of inquiry as proposed in the grounds of            the advance payment system is inconsistent with that
    the application,                                                 provision. In his view, Article 24 requires the
— annul the defendant's decision, notified to him by a letter
                                                                     administration, upon the entry into service of an official or
    dated 13 November 1995 from the Head of the Unit                 agent, to adopt a definitive decision on entitlement to the
                                                                     allowance on the basis of the expected period of service . It
    dealing with pensions and relations with former staff
                                                                     therefore precludes the adoption by the administration of an
    which he received on 23 November 1995 , ordering the
                                                                     initial, purely provisional decision followed, subsequently,
    recovery from him of the installation allowance paid to
                                                                     by a definitive decision based on the period of service
    him, by means of the deduction of part of it from his
                                                                     actually completed .
    severance grant and the issue of a debit note in respect of
    the balance ,
— order the defendant to pay him damages in a sum
    equivalent to the amount of the installation allowance
    received by him, namely Bfr 565 976 ,                            Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-454/93 ,
                                                                                T-456/93 and T-457/93(M
— order the defendant to pay the costs .
                                                                                ( 96/C 354/68
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
The applicant, an official of the Danish civil service on
secondment to the Commission, contests the decision of the           By order of 2 October 1996 the President of the Fourth
appointing authority ordering, in consequence of the                 Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
termination of his contract of employment and by reason of           Communities ordered the removal from the register of
his appointment as a national expert, the repayment of the           Joined Cases T-454/93 , T-456/93 and T-457/93 : Elders
sums paid by way of installation allowance upon him taking           Trading Limited and Paterson Elders ( Produce ) Limited,
up his duties in the cabinet of the Danish Member of the             Barretts & Baird (Wholesale ) Limited, FMC pic, FMC
Commission .                                                         ( Meat ) Limited, D. T. Duggins Limited, Marshall
                                                                     ( Lamberhurst ) Limited, Montelupo Ltd and North Devon
He points out, first of all, that he was given unambiguous           Meat Ltd v. Commission of the European Communities .
assurances on a number of occasions by the competent
department within the defendant institution that the                 (!) OJ No C 290, 6 . 11 . 1992 .
payments in question were to be regarded as having been
definitively acquired by him, even if he were to leave the


title: Case T-266/99: Action brought on 2 November 1999 by Librairie de Rome v European Parliament

text:
C 34/26               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       5.2.2000
Action brought on 28 October 1999 by Demarol B.V.                        The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                         — Annul the decision of the European Parliament.
                        (Case T-264/99)
                         (2000/C 34/49)                                  Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)                         The applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the
                                                                         European Parliament to entrust the running of the newspaper
                                                                         kiosks in the Bertha von Suttnerm and Paul-Henri Spaak
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                buildings and in the passageway in the Altero Spinelli building
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               to a tenderer other than the applicant and, consequently, not
European Communities on 28 October 1999 by Demarol B.V.,                 to accept the tender submitted by the applicant.
of Harderwijk (Netherlands), represented by C.J.M. van Zeijl,
of the Harderwijk Bar, with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg at the Registry of the Court of First Instance, Kirchberg.         In the contested decision, the Parliament took the view that:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              — the tender submitted by the applicant did not meet the
                                                                              criteria concerning financial capacity, having regard to the
(a) annul the Commission’s decision of 20 January 1999                        balance-sheets presented (a loss was carried forward and a
    demanding further information from the Netherlands                        substantial trading debt was incurred in the period 1996
    authorities, and the Commission’s decision of 20 July                     to 1998);
    1999 (C(1999) 2539 final) (1) concerning State aid granted
    by the Netherlands to 633 service stations in the region
    bordering Germany;                                                   — the tender did not include Greek and Portuguese news-
                                                                              papers;
(b) order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                         — the tender submitted by the successful tenderer was more
                                                                              detailed and more attractive, because of the personalised
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               services and the opening times offered.
This pleas in law and main arguments correspond to those in              It is to be borne in mind that the general contract conditions,
Case T-210/99.                                                           the financial regulation and Council Directive 92/50 are
                                                                         applicable to this case mutatis mutandis.
(1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
                                                                         In support of its claims, the applicant alleges infringement:
                                                                         — of the financial regulation of 21 December 1977, appli-
                                                                              cable to the general budget of the European Communities,
                                                                              in particular Articles 56, 58(3) and 139 thereof;
Action brought on 2 November 1999 by Librairie de                        — of Council Directive 92/50 of 19 June 1992 relating to the
                 Rome v European Parliament                                   coordination of procedures for the award of public service
                                                                              contracts, in particular Articles 31 and 34 thereof;
                        (Case T-266/99)
                                                                         — of Articles 4(b) and 6 of the general tendering conditions,
                                                                              and
                         (2000/C 34/50)
                                                                         — of general legal principles, more particularly the principle
                   (Language of the case: French)                             of sound administration.
An action against the European Parliament was brought before             The applicant also alleges a manifest error of appraisal and
the Court of First Instance on 2 November 1999 by Librairie              breach of the obligation to state reasons.
de Rome, a company whose registered office is in Brussels,
represented by Louis Dehin and Christine Brüls, of the Liège
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Charles Duro, 3 Rue de la Chapelle.


title: Case T-315/02: Action brought on 10 October 2002 by Svend Klitgaard against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
21.12.2002            EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 323/37
Action brought on 10 October 2002 by Svend Klitgaard                    Action brought on 16 October 2002 by Fédération des
  against the Commission of the European Communities                    Industries Condimentaires de France and Others against
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
                        (Case T-315/02)
                                                                                (Case T-317/02)
                        (2002/C 323/61)
                                                                                (2002/C 323/62)
                  (Language of the case: Danish)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
European Communities on 10 October 2002 by Svend                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Klitgaard, of Skørping (Denmark), represented by Søren Koll             European Communities on 16 October 2002 by Fédération
Espensen, advokat.                                                      des Industries Condimentaires de France, established in Paris,
                                                                        the Confédération Générale des Producteurs de lait de brebis
                                                                        et des Industriels du Roquefort, established in Millau (France),
                                                                        the Comité Economique Agricole Régional fruits et légumes
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             de Bretagne, established in Morlaix (France) and the Comité
                                                                        Interprofessionnel des Palmipèdes à foie gras, established in
—     Order the defendant to pay to the applicant an amount             Paris, represented by Michel Jacquot and Olivier Prost, avocats.
      totalling EUR 19 867.40 plus interest from 30 April
      2002 and a collection fee of EUR 8 100 or EUR 592,95,
      together with interest thereon from 30 March 2002 until           The applicant claims that the Court should:
      final payment, at the rate offered by the Danish National
      Bank plus 5 %.
                                                                        —     annul the decision of 9 July 2002 terminating the
                                                                              examination procedures concerning obstacles to trade,
                                                                              within the meaning of Council Regulation (EC) No 3286/
                                                                              94, consisting of trade practices maintained by the United
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               States of America in relation to imports of prepared
                                                                              mustard;
The applicant and defendant entered into a contract in                  —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
December 1997 under which the applicant was to provide
assistance in the auditing of a specified number of projects,
coordination of network activities between those projects and
membership of the steering committee for the PLAN project.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
According to the applicant, the defendant has paid in full the
fees owing to the applicant but the applicant has not obtained          Since 1999 the applicants have been and continue to be
reimbursement of his travel expenses, which total                       subject to the application by the United States of America of a
EUR 19 867,40.                                                          100 % increase in customs duties as a result of the ‘beef
                                                                        hormones’ case before the World Trade Organisation.
The applicant submits that payment of the amount claimed
was a matter agreed on pursuant to the contract entered into            One of the applicants lodged a complaint on the basis of
by the parties, under which the defendant is obligated to pay           Council Regulation (EC) No 3286/94 (1), in particular those
documented travel and subsistence expenses. Moreover, by its            established under the auspices of the World Trade Organis-
conduct and the fact that it has honoured all instalments of            ation. The remaining applicants joined the complainant in that
the fees payable, the defendant has indirectly accepted its             complaint.
obligation to pay positive expenditure as requested by the
applicant.
                                                                        Following that complaint, the Commission decided to open
                                                                        an examination procedure. By the contested decision, the
                                                                        Commission decided to terminate that procedure.


title: Case T-301/01: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 July 2008 — Alitalia v Commission (State aid — Recapitalisation of Alitalia by the Italian authorities — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the common market — Decision taken following a judgment of the Court of First Instance annulling an earlier decision — Admissibility — Infringement of Article 233 EC — Infringement of Articles 87 EC and 88 EC — Conditions for authorising the aid — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based)

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/39

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 July 2008 — Alitalia v Commission
   (Case T-301/01) (1)

   (State aid - Recapitalisation of Alitalia by the Italian authorities - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the common market - Decision taken following a judgment of the Court of First Instance annulling an earlier decision - Admissibility - Infringement of Article 233 EC - Infringement of Articles 87 EC and 88 EC - Conditions for authorising the aid - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based)
   (2008/C 209/65)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Alitalia — Linee Aeree Italiane Spa (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Siragusa, G. M. Roberti, G. Scassellati Sforzolini, F. Moretti and F. Sciaudone, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Di Bucci, acting as Agent, and A. Abate and G. Conte, lawyers)
   Re:
   Application for the annulment of Commission Decision 2001/723/EC of 18 July 2001 concerning the recapitalisation of the company Alitalia (OJ 2001 L 271, p. 28).
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Alitalia — Linee aeree italiane Spa to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 44, 16.2.2002.


title: Case T-157/00: Action brought on 8 June 2000 by Nicole Robert against the European Parliament

text:
26.8.2000              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 247/31
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     order the Council of the European Union and the                   —     declare that the Commission has improperly failed to act,
      Commission of the European Communities to pay to the                    inasmuch as it has unlawfully omitted to take a decision
      applicant, pursuant to Article 288 of the EC Treaty, the                on the complaint made pursuant to Article 3 of Regu-
      sum of 762 245 euro in respect of the damage suffered,                  lation No 17/62; and
      subject to the making up of the sum due to the full
      amount;                                                           —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
—     order the Council of the European Union and the
      Commission of the European Communities to pay the                 Pleas in law and main arguments
      costs.
                                                                        The applicant in the present case, whose principal activity is
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         the parallel exportation of medicinal products, objects to the
                                                                        Commission’s failure to respond to the complaint submitted
                                                                        by it regarding the Merck group. That complaint concerned
The applicant company, an undertaking specialising in the               the strategy developed by the latter to combat the parallel
development and manufacture of effervescent cosmetic prod-              market in medicinal products, which took the form of such
ucts for the bath which exports a significant proportion of its         measures as:
production to the United States, is claiming compensation for
the damage suffered as a result of the retaliatory measures             —     the repeated and systematic refusal, on the strength of its
applied by the American authorities to a series of Community                  dominant position, to supply the applicant with three of
products, including bath preparations other than bath salts, in               its special pharmaceutical products;
the context of the dispute concerning the European system for
the importation of bananas. It maintains that the damage                —     the conclusion of concerted agreements with its licensees
which it has suffered is a direct consequence of:                             and certain wholesalers containing an absolute prohib-
                                                                              ition on the exportation of the products referred to above;
—     the adoption and retention by the Council and by
      the Commission of the Community system for the                    —     the establishment of a system of market quotas.
      importation of fresh bananas in breach of the rules laid
      down by GATT and the WTO; and of
                                                                        The complaint was submitted on 15 December 1997, but no
—     the fact that those two institutions omitted to take              decision has been taken on it to date. According to the
      into account the situation of undertakings subjected to           applicant, that inactivity, of over two years’ duration, is placing
      sanctions, which was bound to result from the approach            it in a situation of serious defencelessness. The applicant also
      adopted by them, in violation of the Community prin-              maintains, moreover, that the relevant case-law must be
      ciples of equality and non-discrimination, the protection         understood as imposing on the Commission the obligation to
      of legitimate expectations, freedom to pursue a pro-              examine the facts and legal aspects brought to its attention
      fessional activity and proportionality.                           and to communicate to the party concerned its assessment
                                                                        thereof.
Action brought on 6 June 2000 by Spain Pharma S.A.
  against the Commission of the European Communities                    Action brought on 8 June 2000 by Nicole Robert against
                                                                                the European Parliament
                         (Case T-153/00)
                                                                                (Case T-157/00)
                         (2000/C 247/55)
                                                                                (2000/C 247/56)
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              An action against the Court of Auditors was brought before
European Communities on 6 June 2000 by Spain Pharma                     the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
S.A., established in Madrid, represented by Ricardo Gutiérrez           8 June 2000 by Nicole Robert, residing at Strassen (Luxem-
Sánchez, lawyer.                                                       bourg), represented by Alain Lorang, of the Luxembourg Bar.
 ---pagebreak--- C 247/32                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      26.8.2000
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                European Communities on 13 June 2000 by the Arbeitsge-
                                                                           meinschaft der öffentlich-rechtlichen Rundfunkanstalten der
—     declare that the European Parliament has adopted a                   Bundesrepublik Deutschland (ARD), of Cologne (Federal
      decision contrary to Articles 4 and 5, the second para-              Republic of Germany), consisting of Bayerische Rundfunk,
      graph of Article 7, Articles 9 and 45 and Annex I to the             Hessischer Rundfunk, Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk, Nord-
      Staff Regulations of Officials;                                      deutscher Rundfunk, Ostdeutscher Rundfunk Brandenburg,
                                                                           Radio Bremen, Saarländischer Rundfunk, Sender Freies Berlin,
—     annul the decisions adopted on 26 November 1999                      Südwestrundfunk and Westdeutscher Rundfunk, represented
      by the Director-General for Personnel concerning the                 by Peter Mailänder and Andreas Bartosch, of Haver & Mailänd-
      promotion of certain officials to grades B2 and B1,                  er, Stuttgart (Federal Republic of Germany).
      inasmuch as those decisions were made without the
      announcement or publication of notices of vacancy
                                                                           The applicants claim that the Court should:
      relating to posts corresponding to the standard post of
      principal administrative assistant, and on the basis of an           —     annul the Commission’s decision of 21 March 2000 in
      incorrect examination of the comparative merits of the                     case COMP/JV.37, by which, pursuant to Article 6(1)(b)
      officials concerned;                                                       of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 on the control
—     annul the decision of 10 March 2000 by which the                           of concentrations between undertakings (‘the Merger
                                                                                Regulation’), it declared the proposed concentration of
      Secretary-General rejected the applicant’s complaint of
      29 February 2000;                                                          BSkyB and KirchPayTV to be compatible with the com-
                                                                                mon market;
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                           —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           Pleas in law and principal arguments
The applicant was not included amongst the officials promoted
by decision of the Director-General for Personnel dated                    By the contested decision, the Commission decided to raise no
26 November 1999, allegedly on account of the method used                  objections to a proposed concentration in the course of which
in applying the promotion system recently introduced in the                the British Sky Broadcasting Group plc (‘BSkyB’) intends to
Parliament.                                                                acquire 24 % of the shares in KirchPayTV GmbH & Co. KGaA
                                                                           (‘KirchPayTV’).
She seeks annulment of the decision concerning the number
of points awarded to her for promotion purposes, together                  The applicant contests that decision and advances, in essence,
with annulment of the decisions promoting other officials,                 the following pleas:
which were adopted on the basis of an incorrect examination
of their comparative merits.                                               —     The Commission correctly observes in the contested
                                                                                decision that KirchPayTV would not be able, without the
The applicant asserts that the promotion system in force in                      additional financial resources of BSkyB, to make the
the Parliament is unlawful, and pleads in that connection:                       investment needed in terms of content and technical
                                                                                infrastructure in order to maintain its present market
—     the illegality, in the light of Articles 4 and 5 and Annex I               position. It commits an error of law, however, in
      to the Staff Regulations, of the separation of grades from                 stating that there exists no potential competition between
      functions;                                                                 KirchPayTV and BSkyB in the German market by refer-
                                                                                ence to the current competitive strength of KirchPayTV
—     infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations.                       which might impede the entry into the market of
                                                                                another operator. In so stating, the Commission has
                                                                                misunderstood the criterion to be applied in accordance
                                                                                with Article 2(3) of the Merger Regulation. It has failed to
                                                                                have sufficient regard to the possibility, postulated by the
                                                                                Commission itself, of future changes in the situation as
                                                                                regards dominance of the market.
Action brought on 13 June 2000 by the Arbeitsgemein-
schaft der öffentlich-rechtlichen Rundfunkanstalten der                    —     Although the Commission may accept commitments
Bundesrepublik Deutschland (ARD) against the Com-                                inter alia in the context of the initial examination of
            mission of the European Communities                                  concentrations under Article 6(2) of the Merger Regu-
                                                                                lation, such commitments must be restricted to clearly
                          (Case T-158/00)                                        defined and easily resolvable competition problems.
                                                                                In the present case, the Commission disregarded that
                          (2000/C 247/57)                                        requirement.
                                                                           —     The commitments accepted by the Commission do not
                   (Language of the case: German)                                meet the requirements relating to the application of
                                                                                European merger controls in the light of the structure of
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                        the market. The commitments result in an on-going
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                       monitoring of conduct, as prescribed in the context of


title: Case C-405/09: Action brought on 20 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland

text:
               19.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 312/25

         Action brought on 20 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland
   (Case C-405/09)
   2009/C 312/40
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by A. Caeiros and M. Huttunen, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Finland

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 6 and 9 to 11 of Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 (1) and Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 (2) and Article 220 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92, (3) in that the Finnish authorities have followed an administrative practice under which the Community’s own resources are established only after the debtor has been allowed a period of at least 14 days within which he may submit observations concerning the matter. The Finnish authorities thus have failed to comply, in the case of subsequent charging of customs duties, with the time-limits laid down for the entry of own resources in the accounts, as a result of which the payment of the Community’s own resources by the authorities has been delayed;

               —

               order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               The Commission has brought an action against the Republic of Finland concerning compliance with Articles 2, 6 and 9 to 11 of Regulations (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 and (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 on the Community’s own resources and with Article 220 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 on the Community Customs Code. The issue in the case is the time at which customs duties subsequently determined by the customs authorities are to be entered in the accounts of the Community’s own resources, that is, when the customs duties collected by the Member State are available to the Community.

               2.

               According to the Commission, Finland is in breach of the regulations on own resources and the Community Customs Code in the situation in which a customs debt is subsequently charged, since the Finnish officials give the debtor at least 14 days to submit observations before the final decision on subsequent charging is made. As a result of that procedure granting the right to be heard, the entry in the accounts of the Community’s own resources is delayed.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources, OJ 1989 L 155, p. 1.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources, OJ 2000 L 130, p. 1.

      (3)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.


title: Case F-12/09: Action brought on 18 February 2009 — A v Commission

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/45

         Action brought on 18 February 2009 — A v Commission
   (Case F-12/09)
   2009/C 113/94
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: A (Port-Vendres, France) (represented by: B. Cambier, A. Paternostre, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   First, the application seeks to obtain a declaration that the Commission is liable for certain wrongful acts allegedly committed against the applicant in the procedure pursuant to Article 73 of the Staff Regulations, and the annulment of several decisions refusing to give the applicant the benefit of the provisions of Article 73(2)(b) of the Staff Regulations, refusing to communicate to him a set of documents within his medical file and refusing to reimburse him for certain medical expenses. Second, the application seeks compensation for damage allegedly sustained.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that the European Commission is liable for wrongful acts committed against the applicant in the procedure pursuant to Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and the agreed rules ‘on insurance against accidents and occupational disease’ of officials of the European Communities;

               —

               Annul the decisions of the European Commission of 8 April and 13 November 2008 refusing to give to the applicant the benefit of the provisions of Article 73(2)(b) of the Staff Regulations, refusing to communicate to him a set of documents within his medical file and refusing to reimburse him for certain medical expenses;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay immediately to the applicant the benefit provided for in Article 73(2)(b) of the Staff Regulations, namely EUR 1 422 024, to communicate to him the requested documents and to reimburse him in full for the medical expenses incurred and to be incurred because of the occupational disease suffered by him;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay to the applicant interest on late payment at the key rate of the European Central Bank increased by two points on the amount of the benefit to be paid under Article 73(2)(b) of the Staff Regulations, running from December 2004, when the occupational origin of the applicant’s disease ought to have been recognised;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay to the applicant, in respect of his entitlement to full compensation for the damage suffered and in addition to the sums referred to above, the sum of EUR 1 949 689, that sum representing the difference between the total amount of the damage suffered and that of the lump sum benefit payable to the applicant under Article 73(2)(b) of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 25 000 or any other sum which appears sufficient to the Tribunal in respect of the non-material damage suffered because of the many wrongful acts and breaches of procedure committed by the departments of the European Commission in the conduct of medical procedures relating to him;

               —

               Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.


title: Case T-153/16: Action brought on 8 April 2016 — Acerga v Council

text:
               6.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/28

         Action brought on 8 April 2016 — Acerga v Council
   (Case T-153/16)
   (2016/C 200/40)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Asociación de armadores de cerco de Galicia (Acerga) (Sada, Spain) (represented by: B. Huarte Melgar, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Regulation (EU) 2016/72 of 22 January 2016 fixing for 2016 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks and Council Regulation (EU) 2016/458 of 30 March 2016 amending Regulation (EU) 2016/72 as regards certain fishing opportunities;

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay the applicant’s costs in the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of relative stability.
               In that regard, it is submitted that, since the same percentages for the allocation of fishing opportunities apply, account is not being taken of those regions of the Member States which joined the EEC after 1981, where local populations are (and were at that time) highly dependent on fisheries. As a consequence, the objective of relative stability itself is not being achieved. Furthermore, even assuming that that allocation key is fixed, it is submitted that those percentages have changed over the years, and as such the relative stability criterion has not been satisfied.

               2.

               Second plea in law, based on the failure to have regard to the objective of generating economic and social benefits and creating jobs, laid down in the first paragraph of Article 2(2) of the CFP 2013, in that Spanish regions where local populations are highly dependent on fisheries were not taken into consideration.

               3.

               Third plea in law, based on the infringement of the principle of non-discrimination, in that the contested provision applies relative stability differently to comparable situations.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, based on the infringement of the principle of solidarity, laid down in Article 3 TFEU.
               In that regard, it is submitted that both the allocation of national fishing quotas (based on relative stability), under Regulation (EU) 2016/72, and the instrumental measures for controlling fishing effort are not applied to the same extent in all Member States.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, based on the infringement of the principle of an open market economy with free competition and the fundamental freedom of the European Union of movement of capital.
               In that regard, it is submitted that there is no mention in Regulation (EU) 2016/72 of the possibility of exchanging fishing quotas through tradable fishing rights between undertakings or producer organisations in the Member States of the EU.


title: Case C-360/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by order of the Bundesgerichtshof of 30 March 2000 in the case of Land Hessen against G. Ricordi & Co. Bühnen- und Musikverlag GmbH

text:
C 355/10              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     9.12.2000
2.   Conversely, does a national provision which, in                   Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesge-
     implementing a ‘harmonising’ directive, omits the above-          richt Düsseldorf by order of that court of 2 August 2000
     mentioned requirements, conform with Community law?               in the case of Buchhändler-Vereinigung GmbH against
                                                                       Saur Verlag GmbH & Co. KG and Die Deutsche Bibliothek
                                                                                (Case C-358/00)
(1) OJ L 141 of 11.6.1993, p. 27.
                                                                                (2000/C 355/18)
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by order of the Oberlandesgericht
                                                                       Düsseldorf (Higher Regional Court, Düsseldorf) of 2 August
                                                                       2000, received at the Court Registry on 27 September 2000,
                                                                       for a preliminary ruling in the case of Buchhändler-Vereinigung
                                                                       GmbH against Saur Verlag GmbH & Co. KG and Die Deutsche
                                                                       Bibliothek on the following question concerning the interpret-
                                                                       ation of Articles 1 and 8 of Council Directive 97/52/EEC (1) of
                                                                       18 June 1992 concerning the coordination of procedures for
                                                                       the award of public service contracts, amended by Directive
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-               97/52/EC (2) of 13 October 1997 (hereinafter ‘the Service
richt Bremen by order of 22 May 2000 in the case of Fikri              Directive’):
              Akdenk v Stadtgemeinde Bremen
                                                                       Does the Service Directive also apply to a contract
                        (Case C-357/00)                                (a)   by which the contracting authority confers on the
                                                                             contractor the exclusive publishing rights (right of repro-
                                                                             duction and distribution) in a bibliography compiled by
                                                                             it — in this case the German National Bibliography,
                        (2000/C 355/17)
                                                                       (b) which requires the contractor to reproduce and market
                                                                             the bibliography on his own account and to pay the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       contracting authority a reasonable fee on the basis of the
European Communities by order of 22 May 2000 by the                          publishing proceeds for each copy sold, and
Verwaltungsgericht (Administrative Court) Bremen, which was
received at the Court Registry on 27 September 2000, for a             (c)   in which the contracting authority reserves rights of
preliminary ruling in the case of Fikri Akdenk v Stadtgemeinde               supervision and codetermination with regard to the
Bremen on the following questions:                                           reproduction and distribution of the bibliography?
1.   Is a family member within the meaning of Article 7, first         (1) OJ L 209 of 24.7.1992, p. 1.
     paragraph, first indent, of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-          (2) OJ L 328 of 28.11.1997, p. 1.
     Turkey Association Council on the development of the
     Association (Decision No 1/80) entitled to have access to
     the labour market even in the case where, after satisfying
     the conditions set out in the first paragraph of Article 7
     of Decision No 1/80, he has been given a custodial
     sentence of seven years and six months, of which he shall
     have to serve at least one half or two thirds?
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by order of the
                                                                       Bundesgerichtshof of 30 March 2000 in the case of Land
                                                                       Hessen against G. Ricordi & Co. Bühnen- und Musikverlag
2.   Does a right of access to the labour market also exist                                          GmbH
     under the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80,
     notwithstanding a long-term custodial sentence, in the
     case where the member of the family of the Turkish                                         (Case C-360/00)
     worker is entitled only to respond to any offer of
     employment subject to the priority to be given to workers                                  (2000/C 355/19)
     from the Member States (Article 7, first paragraph, first
     indent)?                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal
                                                                       Court of Justice) by order of 30 March 2000, received at the
                                                                       Court Registry on 28 September 2000, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                       in the case of Land Hessen against G. Ricordi & Co. Bühnen-
                                                                       und Musikverlag GmbH on the following question:
 ---pagebreak--- 9.12.2000                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 355/11
Must the prohibition of discrimination in the first paragraph             Action brought on 2 October 2000 by the Commission
of Article 12 EC be applied in cases where a foreign author               of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
had already died when the Treaty entered into force in the
State of which he was a national, if otherwise the consequence,
under national law, would be unequal treatment as regards the
term of protection of the foreign author’s works and of those                                      (Case C-365/00)
of a national author who also died before the entry into force
of the Treaty?
                                                                                (2000/C 355/21)
                                                                          An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
                                                                          Court of Justice of the European Communities on 2 October
                                                                          2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                          represented by Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal Adviser,
Action brought on 3 October 2000 by the Commission                        and Roberto Amorosi, Magistrato di Tribunale, on secondment
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the                    to the Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for
                             Netherlands                                  service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Carlos Gómez de
                                                                          la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                           (Case C-364/00)
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                           (2000/C 355/20)
                                                                          —     declare that, by adopting and keeping in force Article 28
An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought                    of Law No 128 of 24 April 1998, which makes it a
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                         requirement that the labels of cosmetic products state
on 3 October 2000 by the Commission of the European                             whether the fragrances or perfume essences contained in
Communities, represented by Th. Van Rijn, Legal Adviser,                        them are of natural or artificial origin, has failed to fulfil
acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                   its obligations under Council Directive 76/768/EEC of
the office of C. Gómez de la Cruz, of the Commission’s Legal                   27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of
Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                              the Member States relating to cosmetic products (1), as
                                                                                amended for the sixth time by Council Directive
                                                                                93/35/EEC of 14 June 1993 (2), in particular by the third
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                     subparagraph of Article 6(1)(g) of that directive;
—     Declare that, by failing to bring into force within the             —     order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
      prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative
      provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
      97/70/EC (1) of 11 December 1997 setting up a harmon-
      ised safety regime for fishing vessels of 24 metres in
      length and over, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has                 Pleas in law and main arguments
      failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty;
                                                                          The Commission argues that, because the Italian law in
—     Order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.              question prevents the free movement within Italian territory
                                                                          of cosmetic products which carry no indication of whether the
                                                                          fragrances or perfume essences contained in them are of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           natural or artificial origin, that law introduces an additional
                                                                          requirement not contemplated by Directive 76/768/EEC and
                                                                          thus prohibited by it. Furthermore, the Italian authorities
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in               themselves have demonstrated that they are aware of this
Case C-335/00 (2); the period for implementation expired on               matter, albeit that they have shown themselves unable to
1 January 1999.                                                           resolve the problem.
(1) OJ 1998 L 34, pp. 1-29.                                               (1) OJ L 262 of 27.9.1976, p. 169.
(2) OJ C …                                                                (2) OJ L 151 of 23.6.1993, p. 32.


title: Action brought on 9 June 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland (Case C-212/98)

text:
C 234/22              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    25.7.98
p. 48) if it serves to secure the repayment of a debt which                   system as described in Question 1(a) to be
the principal debtor did not incur in the course of a trade                   established, where that system and the obligation
or profession already being pursued by him?                                   for waste producers to use the system are based
                                                                              on the interest in promoting recovery of the waste
                                                                              covered by the system, including the interest in
                                                                              ensuring necessary treatment capacity?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the éstre Landsret            2. Must Article 10 of Directive 75/442/EEC, as amended
by order of 27 May 1998 in the case of FFAD Ð                            by Directive 91/156/EEC (see Articles 13 and 2(j) of
Entreprenùrforeningens Affalds/Miljùsektion, acting on                   Regulation (EEC) No 259/93), be construed as
behalf of Sydhavnens Sten & Grus ApS v The Commune                       meaning that public authorities are under an
of Copenhagen, Fifth Section of the Communal Authority                   obligation to treat equally undertakings which have
                  Ð Environmental Control                                obtained a permit as described in that provision in
                       (Case C-209/98)                                   relation to the conclusion of agreements concerning
                                                                         the receipt and recovery of environmentally non-
                         (98/C 234/42)                                   hazardous building waste?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 27 May 1998 from                   3. (a) Must Article 7(3) of Directive 75/442/EEC, as
the éstre Landsret (Eastern Regional Court), which was                        amended by Directive 91/156/EEC, be construed
received at the Court Registry on 8 June 1998, for a                          as meaning that that provision and the power it
preliminary ruling in the case of FFAD Ð                                      grants to prevent movements of waste allow a
Entreprenùrforeningens Affalds/Miljùsektion, acting on                        communal system such as that described in
behalf of Sydhavnens Sten & Grus ApS v The Commune                            Question 1(a) and thereby allow the commune to
of Copenhagen, Fifth Section of the Communal Authority                        prevent the movement of environmentally non-
Ð Environmental Control on the following questions:                           hazardous building waste destined for recovery, if
                                                                              such movement is contrary to the waste plan
1. (a) Disregarding possible application of Article 36 of                     drawn up by the commune?
         the Treaty or any other valid considerations (see
         Question 1(c)), must Article 90 of the Treaty, in
                                                                         (b) Must Article 7(3) of Directive 75/442/EEC, as
         conjunction with Articles 34 and 86 thereof, be
                                                                              amended by Directive 91/156/EEC, be construed
         construed as precluding the establishment of a
                                                                              as meaning that measures which a Member State
         communal system which Ð with a view to
                                                                              or a competent authority in that Member State
         ensuring that specially selected undertakings will
                                                                              has adopted, and which are necessary to prevent
         have sufficiently large access to environmentally
                                                                              movements of waste not in accordance with the
         non-hazardous building waste destined for
                                                                              waste plans of the authority, are valid and
         recovery from private builders to enable those
                                                                              enforceable against individuals or undertakings to
         undertakings to exploit that waste on an
                                                                              which the measures are relevant only if the EC
         economically justifiable and rational basis Ð
                                                                              Commission has been notified of those measures?
         excludes other undertakings from collecting and
         receiving the same type of waste from building
         work within the area of the commune in question,           (1) Council Directive of 75/442/EEC 15 July 1975 on waste
         even though these other undertakings have                      (OJ L 194 of 25.7.1975, p. 39).
         obtained a permit to treat the type of waste in            (2) Council Directive of 18 March 1991 (OJ L 78 of 26.3.1991,
                                                                        p. 32).
         question in accordance with Article 10 of
         Directive 75/442/EEC (1), as amended by Directive
         91/156/EEC (2)?
    (b) (If Question 1(a) is answered in the affirmative):
         Would a system such as that described in
         Question 1(a) be contrary to Article 90 of the EC          Action brought on 9 June 1998 by the Commission of the
         Treaty, in conjunction with Articles 34 and 86                         European Communities against Ireland
         thereof, if the communal provision forming the
                                                                                (Case C-212/98)
         basis of that system provides that waste which is
         exported or imported is not covered by the                                          (98/C 234/43)
         communal system mentioned in Question 1(a)?
    (c) (If Question 1(a) is answered in the affirmative):
                                                                    An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
         Does Article 36 of the Treaty or any other valid           Justice of the European Communities on 9 June 1998
         considerations, such as the concern that                   by the Commission of the European Communities,
         environmental damage should be rectified at                represented by Karen Banks, a member of its Legal
         source and the establishment of any necessary              Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
         treatment      and     disposal    facilities    (see      office of Mr Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, a member of its
         Article 130r(2) of the Treaty), allow a communal           Legal Service, Centre Wagner, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- 25.7.98              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 234/23
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
a) find that Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations
    under the EC Treaty by failing to adopt the laws,               Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive shall
    regulations or administrative provisions necessary to           be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each
    comply with Council Directive 93/83/EEC of                      Member State, carries by implication an obligation on the
    27 September 1993 on the coordination of certain                Member States to observe the period for compliance laid
    rules concerning copyright and rights related to                down in the directive. That period expired on 1 January
    copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable        1998 without Ireland having enacted the provisions
    retransmission (1) and/or by failing to inform the              necessary to comply with the directive referred to in the
    Commission thereof;                                             conclusions of the Commission and/or informing the
                                                                    Commission thereof.
    and
b) order Ireland to bear the costs of this procedure.               (1) OJ L 248 of 6.10.1993, p. 15.
                                                   COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Extension of the composition of the Chambers for the                former officials, retired officials of the Commission of the
                   judicial year 1997/1998                          European Communities, residing in Germany, represented
                        (98/C 234/44)                               by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of the Brussels
                                                                    Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                    offices of Fiduciaire Myson SaÁrl, 30 Rue de Cessange, v
At its Plenary Conference held on 1 July 1998 the Court
                                                                    Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
of First Instance took formal note of the fact that, owing
                                                                    Gianluigi Valsesia), supported by Council of the European
to the judicial vacation, the oath-taking ceremony before
                                                                    Union (Agents: initially, Yves Cretien, Antonio Lucidi and
the Court of Justice for new members of the Court of First
                                                                    Diego Canga Fano and, subsequently, Mr Lucidi and Mr
Instance could not take place until after the judicial
                                                                    Canga Fano alone), Federal Republic of Germany (Agents:
vacation and that consequently, in accordance with the
                                                                    Sabine Maass, Ernst Röder and Bernd Kloke) and
third paragraph of Article 5 of the EC Statute of the
                                                                    Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents: Marc Fierstra and
Court of Justice, the third paragraph of Article 5 of the
                                                                    Johannes van den Oosterkamp) Ð application, first, for
EAEC Statute of the Court of Justice, and the third
                                                                    annulment of the applicants' pension statements for
paragraph of Article 5 of the ECSC Statute of the Court
                                                                    December 1994, inasmuch as those statements are drawn
of Justice, the decisions of 2 July 1997 (OJ C 271 of
                                                                    up on the basis of Council Regulation (ECSC, EC,
6.9.1997) and 10 March 1998 (OJ C 113 of 11.4.1998)
                                                                    Euratom) No 3161/94 of 19 December 1994 adjusting,
on the designation of the Presidents of Chambers, the
                                                                    with effect from 1 July 1994, the remuneration and
composition of the Chambers and the assignment of cases
                                                                    pensions of officials (OJ L 335 of 23.12.1994, p. 1) and,
to them would continue to apply and that the President of
                                                                    second, for reinstatement of the applicants' pension rights
the Court, Mr Bo Vesterdorf, would continue to exercise
                                                                    in full, weighted, with effect from 3 October 1990, at the
the presidency of the Court of First Instance.
                                                                    rate fixed by reference to the cost of living in Berlin, and
                                                                    for default interest at the annual rate of 10 % Ð the
                                                                    Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: B.
                                                                    Vesterdorf, President, and C. P. BrieÈt and A. Potocki,
                                                                    Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 June
                                                                    1998, in which it:
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        of 9 June 1998
in Joined Cases T-171/95 and T-191/95: Adriaan Al and
99 Others and Franz Becker and 6 Others v Commission                1. Dismisses the applications as inadmissible;
              of the European Communities (1)
(Officials Ð Pensions Ð Weighting Ð Change of capital
Ð Retroactive effect Ð Regulation (ECSC, EC, Euratom)
No 3161/94 Ð Action for annulment Ð Admissibility Ð                 2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
             Act adversely affecting an official)
                        (98/C 234/45)
                                                                    (1) OJ C 315 of 25.11.1995.
               (Language of the case: French)
In Joined Cases T-171/95 and T-191/95: Adriaan Al and
99 other former officials and Franz Becker and 6 other


title: Joined Cases T-424/14 and T-425/14: Judgment of the General Court of 13 November 2015 — ClientEarth v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Draft impact assessment report, impact assessment report and opinion of the Impact Assessment Board — Refusal to grant access — Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process — Duty to state reasons — Obligation to carry out a specific and individual examination — Overriding public interest)

text:
               11.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 November 2015 — ClientEarth v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-424/14 and T-425/14) (1)

   ((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Draft impact assessment report, impact assessment report and opinion of the Impact Assessment Board - Refusal to grant access - Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process - Duty to state reasons - Obligation to carry out a specific and individual examination - Overriding public interest))
   (2016/C 007/33)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: O. Brouwer, F. Heringa and J. Wolfhagen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Applications for annulment of (i) the Commission’s decision of 1 April 2014 refusing to grant access to an Impact Assessment report for a proposed binding instrument setting a strategic framework for risk-based inspection and surveillance in relation to EU environmental legislation and an opinion of the Impact Assessment Board and (ii) the Commission’s decision of 3 April 2014 refusing to grant access to a draft Impact Assessment report relating to access to justice in environmental matters at Member State level in the field of EU environmental policy and an opinion of the Impact Assessment Board.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the actions;

               2.

               Orders ClientEarth to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.


title: Case C-532/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 9 October 2013 — Sofia Zoo v Országos Környezetvédelmi, Természetvédelmi és Vízügyi Főfelügyelőség

text:
               18.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 15/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 9 October 2013 — Sofia Zoo v Országos Környezetvédelmi, Természetvédelmi és Vízügyi Főfelügyelőség
   (Case C-532/13)
   2014/C 15/06
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sofia Zoo

      Defendant: Országos Környezetvédelmi, Természetvédelmi és Vízügyi Főfelügyelőség

      Questions referred

               1.

               Under Article 11(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97, (1) must permits and certificates be deemed void only in respect of the specimens actually affected by a ground for invalidity, or in respect also of the other specimens covered by the permit or certificate?

               2.

               Does Article 11(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 provide that all the specimens covered by the permits or certificates deemed void in accordance with Article 11(2)(a) must be seized, and may be confiscated, or only those which are actually affected by the ground for invalidity?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (OJ L 61, 3.3.1997, p. 1).


title: Case C-504/11 P: Order of the President of the Court of 8 May 2012 — ThyssenKrupp Ascenseurs Luxemburg Sàrl v European Commission

text:
               6.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/21

         Order of the President of the Court of 8 May 2012 — ThyssenKrupp Ascenseurs Luxemburg Sàrl v European Commission
   (Case C-504/11 P) (1)

   2012/C 303/39
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 347, 26.11.2011.


title: Case C-307/10: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from The Person Appointed by the Lord Chancellor — United Kingdom) — Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys v Registrar of Trade Marks (Trade marks — Approximation of laws of the Member States — Directive 2008/95/EC — Identification of the goods or services for which the protection of a trade mark is sought — Requirements of clarity and precision — Use of class headings of the Nice Classification for the purposes of the registration of trade marks — Whether permissible — Extent of protection of the trade mark)

text:
               18.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 250/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from The Person Appointed by the Lord Chancellor — United Kingdom) — Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys v Registrar of Trade Marks
   (Case C-307/10) (1)

   (Trade marks - Approximation of laws of the Member States - Directive 2008/95/EC - Identification of the goods or services for which the protection of a trade mark is sought - Requirements of clarity and precision - Use of class headings of the Nice Classification for the purposes of the registration of trade marks - Whether permissible - Extent of protection of the trade mark)
   2012/C 250/02
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   The Person Appointed by the Lord Chancellor

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys

      Defendant: Registrar of Trade Marks

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — The Person Appointed by the Lord Chancellor — Interpretation of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (Codified version) (OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25) — Classification of goods or services for the purposes of registration — Degree of clarity and precision required as regards the identification of the goods or services covered by a trade mark

      Operative part of the judgment

   Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that it requires the goods and services for which the protection of the trade mark is sought to be identified by the applicant with sufficient clarity and precision to enable the competent authorities and economic operators, on that basis alone, to determine the extent of the protection conferred by the trade mark.
   Directive 2008/95 must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude the use of the general indications of the class headings of the Classification referred to in Article 1 of the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks, concluded at the Nice Diplomatic Conference on 15 June 1957, last revised in Geneva on 13 May 1977 and amended on 28 September 1979, to identify the goods and services for which the protection of the trade mark is sought, provided that such identification is sufficiently clear and precise.
   An applicant for a national trade mark who uses all the general indications of a particular class heading of the Classification referred to in Article 1 of the Nice Agreement to identify the goods or services for which the protection of the trade mark is sought must specify whether its application for registration is intended to cover all the goods or services included in the alphabetical list of that class or only some of those goods or services. If the application concerns only some of those goods or services, the applicant is required to specify which of the goods or services in that class are intended to be covered.

      (1)  OJ C 246, 11.9.2010.