title: Case T-436/09: Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2011 — Dufour v ECB (Access to documents — Decision 2004/258/EC — ECB’s databases used for the preparation of reports on staff recruitment and mobility — Refusal of access — Action for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings — Admissibility — Meaning of ‘document’ — Action for damages — Premature)

text:
               3.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2011 — Dufour v ECB
   (Case T-436/09) (1)

   (Access to documents - Decision 2004/258/EC - ECB’s databases used for the preparation of reports on staff recruitment and mobility - Refusal of access - Action for annulment - Interest in bringing proceedings - Admissibility - Meaning of ‘document’ - Action for damages - Premature)
   2011/C 355/30
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Julien Dufour (Jolivet, France) (represented by: I. Schoenacker Rossi and H. Djeyaramane, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: initially K. Laurinavicius and S. Lambrinoc, then S. Lambrinoc and P. Embley, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: B. Weis Fogh and S. Juul Jørgensen, Agents); Republic of Finland (represented by: initially J. Heliskoski, H. Leppo and M. Pere, then J. Heliskoski and H. Leppo, Agents); and Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk, K. Petkovska and S. Johannesson, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne and C. ten Dam, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for, first, annulment of the decision of the Board of Directors of the European Central Bank, notified to the applicant by letter of the President of the ECB of 2 September 2009, refusing to grant the applicant access to the databases used for the compilation of reports on its staff recruitment and mobility and, second, delivery up to the applicant of the databases in question, and, finally, a claim for damages for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the refusal of his application for access

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Board of Directors of the European Central Bank (ECB) notified to Mr Julien Dufour by letter of the President of the ECB of 2 September 2009;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the ECB to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Dufour;

               4.

               Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 11, 16.1.2010.


title: Case T-29/12: Action brought on 17 January 2012 — Bauer v OHIM — BenQ Materials (Daxon)

text:
               17.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/23

         Action brought on 17 January 2012 — Bauer v OHIM — BenQ Materials (Daxon)
   (Case T-29/12)
   2012/C 80/39
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Erika Bauer (Schaufling, Germany) (represented by: A. Merz, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: BenQ Materials Corp. (Gueishan Taoyuan, Taiwan)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 November 2011 in Case R 2191/2010-2 in its entirety;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: BenQ Materials Corp.

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Daxon’ for goods in Classes 3, 5 and 10

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘DALTON’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 5, 18, 25, 35, 41 and 44

      Decision of the Opposition Division: rejection of the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 as there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 8 December 1998 in Case T-38/98: Associazione Nazionale Bieticoltori (ANB) and Others v Council of the European Union (Regulation (EC) No 2613/97 - Provision abolishing national aid to sugar beet producers with effect from the marketing year 2001/2002 - Action for annulment - Inadmissibility)

text:
C 71/26                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  13.3.1999
and Guus Houttuin), supported by Kingdom of Spain                    Lucera (Italy), represented by Luigi Filippo Paolucci and
(Agent: Rosario Silva de Lapuerta) and Commission of the             Gian Piero Galletti, of the Bologna Bar, with an address
European Communities (Agent: Thomas van Rijn) Ð                      for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of ArseÁne
application, in Case T-163/97, first, for annulment of               Kronshagen, 22 Rue Marie-Adelaïde, v Council of the
Commission Regulation (EC) No 764/97 of 23 April 1997                European Union (Agents: John Carbery and Antonio
introducing safeguard measures in respect of imports of              Tanca) Ð application for annulment of Article 2 of
rice originating in the overseas countries and territories           Council Regulation (EC) No 2613/97 of 15 December
(OJ L 112, 29.4.1997, p. 3) and, secondly, for an order              1997 authorising Portugal to grant aid to sugar beet
requiring the Community to pay compensation for the                  producers and abolishing all State aid from the 2001/2002
losses allegedly suffered by the applicant following the             marketing year (OJ L 353, 24.12.1997, p. 3) Ð the Court
adoption of the abovementioned regulation and of                     (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition), composed
Council Regulation (EC) No 1036/97 of 2 June 1997                    of: R. M. Moura Ramos, President, and R. García-
introducing safeguard measures in respect of imports of              Valdecasas, V. Tiili, P. Lindh and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H.
rice originating in the overseas countries and territories           Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 8 December 1998,
(OCTs) (OJ L 151, 10.6.1997, p. 8) and, in Case                      the operative part of which is a follows:
T-179/97, for annulment of the latter regulation Ð the
Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of M.
Jaeger, President of the Third Chamber, K. Lenaerts and J.           1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible;
Azizi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
16 November 1998, the operative part of which is as
follows:                                                             2. The applicants are jointly and severally to pay the
                                                                          costs.
1. Cases T-163/97 Netherlands Antilles v Council and                 (1) OJ C 137, 2.5.1998.
     Commission and T-179/97 Netherlands Antilles v
     Council, are disjoined.
2. Proceedings in T-163/97 Netherlands Antilles v
     Council and Commission are stayed pending delivery
     of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case
                                                                          ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     C-301/97 Netherlands v Council.
                                                                                of 8 December 1998
3. Jurisdiction is declined in Case T-179/97 Netherlands             in Case T-39/98: Sadam Zuccherifici Divisione della SECI
     Antilles v Council, in order to enable the Court of                 SpA and Others v Council of the European Union (1)
     Justice to rule on the application for annulment.               (Regulation (EC) No 2613/97 Ð Provision abolishing
                                                                     national aid to sugar beet producers with effect from the
4. The costs are reserved.                                           marketing year 2001/2002 Ð Action for annulment Ð
                                                                                Inadmissibility)
(1) OJ C 212, 12.7.1997 and OJ C 228, 26.7.1997.                                             (1999/C 71/51)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                     In Case T-39/98: Sadam Zuccherifici Divisione della SECI
                                                                     SpA, established at Bologna (Italy), Sadam Castiglionese
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                     SpA, established at Bologna, Sadam Abruzzo SpA,
                      of 8 December 1998                             established at Bologna, Zuccherificio del Molise SpA,
                                                                     established at Termoli (Italy) and SocietaÁ Fondiaria
in Case T-38/98: Associazione Nazionale Bieticoltori
                                                                     Industriale Romagnola SpA (SFIR), established at Cesena
   (ANB) and Others v Council of the European Union (1)
                                                                     (Italy), represented by Vincenzo Cerulli Irelli, of the Rome
(Regulation (EC) No 2613/97 Ð Provision abolishing                   Bar, and by Gualtiero Pittalis and Giancarlo Fanzini, of
national aid to sugar beet producers with effect from the            the Bologna Bar, with an address for service in
marketing year 2001/2002 Ð Action for annulment Ð                    Luxembourg at the Chambers of ArseÁne Kronshagen,
                         Inadmissibility)                            22 Rue Marie-Adelaïde, v Council of the European Union
                                                                     (Agents: John Carbery and Antonio Tanca) Ð application
                         (1999/C 71/50)                              for annulment of Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC)
                                                                     No 2613/97 of 15 December 1997 authorising Portugal to
                (Language of the case: Italian)                      grant aid to sugar beet producers and abolishing all State
                                                                     aid from the 2001/2002 marketing year (OJ L 353,
                                                                     24.12.1997, p. 3) Ð the Court (Fourth Chamber,
In Case T-38/98: Associazione Nazionale Bieticoltori                 Extended Composition), composed of: R. M. Moura
(ANB), established in Rome, Francesco Coccia, residing at            Ramos, President, and R. García-Valdecasas, V. Tiili,
Manfredonia (Italy), and Vincenzo Di Giovine, residing at            P. Lindh and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has


title: Case F-106/13: Action brought on 25 October 2013 — ZZ v FRA

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/46

         Action brought on 25 October 2013 — ZZ v FRA
   (Case F-106/13)
   2014/C 45/86
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the FRA Director’s decision to impose a disciplinary penalty on the applicant in the form of a reprimand.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the FRA Director dated 20 February 2013 issuing a reprimand and, if necessary, the decision of 22 February 2013 confirming the reprimand in writing;

               —

               if necessary, annul the decision of the FRA Director dated 17 July 2013, received on 18t July 2013, rejecting the complaint;

               —

               grant the applicant adequate compensation for the moral damage caused by the gross illegality and irregularity of the administrative inquiry and of the decision to issue a reprimand. This moral damage is assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 15 000,00;

               —

               order the defendant to pay all costs.


title: Case T-403/05: Action brought on  15 November 2005  — MyTravel/Commission

text:
               14.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 10/29

         Action brought on 15 November 2005 — MyTravel/Commission
   (Case T-403/05)
   (2006/C 10/57)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant(s): MyTravel Group plc (Rochdale, United Kingdom) [represented by: D. Pannick, QC, A. Lewis, Barrister, M. Nicholson, S. Cardell, B. McKenna, Solicitors]

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul, in its entirety or in the alternative in such part as the Court may determine, the Commission's decision, contained in two letters to the applicant's counsel dated 5 September 2005 and 12 October 2005, not to grant to the applicant access to the report prepared by the Commission following the judgment of the Court of First Instance, of 6 June 2002, in Case T-342/99, Airtours/Commission, as well as a number of drafts, working papers and notes, either relating to the preparation of that report or contained in the case file of the Commission's decision which was annulled by the aforementioned judgment;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, then named ‘Airtours plc.’, brought an application requesting the annulment of the Commission's decision regarding the applicant's merger with another company. By its judgment in Case T-342/99, Airtours/Commission, the Court annulled that decision, as requested by the applicant. The applicant then brought another application (Case T-212/03, MyTravel/Commission), for damages allegedly incurred by reason of the Commission's errors and breaches of Community law in its handling of the case leading to the annulment.
   In the context of those second proceedings, the applicant, relying on Regulation 1049/2001 (1), requested the Commission to grant it access to the report prepared by the Commission's services following the judgment, as well as a number of drafts, working papers and notes, either relating to the preparation of that report or contained in the case file of the Commission's decision, which had been annulled. By the contested decision, the Commission rejected the applicant's request, considering that the exceptions in Article 4, paragraphs 2 and 3, of Regulation 1049/2001, relating to the protection of court proceedings and legal advice, of the purposes of inspections, investigations and audits or of the Commission's decision making process, should apply.
   The applicant requests the annulment of this decision. It challenges in detail the Commission's assertions that certain documents should not be disclosed in order to protect court and legal proceedings, and considers that it should not be open to the Commission to rely on the need to protect historic court proceedings, such as the ones in Case T-342/99, already closed, in order to resist the disclosure of documents which are central to the achieving of a just result in separate, ongoing proceedings.
   With regard to the protection of investigations, the applicant contends that the Commission's appraisal of a proposed merger is not an investigation for the purposes of the exception and that the exception does not apply to internal enquiries nor does it in any event apply to enquiries which are closed. Further, the applicant considers that disclosure would not undermine the purpose of investigations in similar merger procedures. The applicant also challenges the Commission's assertion that an internal audit aimed at modernising administrative procedures could not be independent if its recommendations and findings were made public.
   Finally, the applicant considers that the Commission has not established that disclosure would seriously undermine its future decision-making process, since the report of which disclosure was requested does not relate to the way decisions will be taken in future but to the way in which they were wrongly taken in the past, transparency could not be equated to undue external pressure and the disclosure requested would have no impact on the stability of the Community legal order.
   The applicant finally argues that there is an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the requested documents.

      (1)  OJ L 145, 31/05/2001, p. 43


title: Case T-112/13: Action brought on 19 February 2013 — Cadbury Holdings/OHIM — Société des produits Nestlé (Shape of a four-finger chocolate bar)

text:
               27.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/19

         Action brought on 19 February 2013 — Cadbury Holdings/OHIM — Société des produits Nestlé (Shape of a four-finger chocolate bar)
   (Case T-112/13)
   2013/C 123/32
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Cadbury Holdings Ltd (Uxbridge, United Kingdom) (represented by: T. Mitcheson, Barrister, P. Walsh and S. Dunstan, Solicitors)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Société des produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal in Case R 513/2011-2 dated 11 December 2012, except insofar as the Board of Appeal determined that the mark is devoid of inherent distinctive character under Article 7(1)(b); and

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs of this application and order the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Cancellation Division and the Board of Appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The three-dimensional mark representing a shape of a four-finger chocolate bar for goods in class 30 — Community trade mark registration No 2 632 529

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The grounds of the request for a declaration of invalidity were those laid down in Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b), (c), (d) and (e)(ii) of Council Regulation No 207/2009

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the Community trade mark invalid

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b), (c), (d) and (e)(ii) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


17.7.1999               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 204/35
2. Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.                     Removal from the register of Case C-320/97 (1)
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those                                      (1999/C 204/74)
submitted in Case C-168/99 (2), the period prescribed in
Article 14(2) of the directive expired on 27 June 1997.               By order of 18 March 1999 the President of the Court of
                                                                      Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                      from the register of Case C-320/97: Commission of the
(1) OJ 1995 L 143, p. 75.                                             European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
(2) See this OJ, p. 28.
                                                                      (1) OJ No C 331 of 1.11.1997.
       Removal from the register of Case C-330/98 (1)
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-5/99 (1)
                         (1999/C 204/71)
                                                                                (1999/C 204/75)
By order of 10 March 1999 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           By order of 18 March 1999 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-330/98 (reference for a preliminary       Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): The Wellcome Foun-             from the register of Case C-5/99 (reference for a preliminary
dation Ltd v Nycomed Austria GmbH.                                    ruling from the Landgericht Regensburg): Business registry
                                                                      case relating to Firma Wiesenhof Geflügelspezialitäten, a
                                                                      branch of Lohmann & Co. AG.
(1) OJ No C 340 of 7.11.1998.
                                                                      (1) OJ No C 86 of 27.3.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-186/97 (1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-245/98 (1)
                         (1999/C 204/72)                                                      (1999/C 204/76)
By order of 18 March 1999 the President of the Court of               By order of 19 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
from the register of Case C-186/97: Commission of the                 the register of Case C-245/98: Commission of the European
European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.                   Communities v French Republic.
(1) OJ No C 212 of 12.7.1997.                                         (1) OJ No C 278 of 5.9.1998.
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-398/96 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case     C-192/97 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 204/77)
                         (1999/C 204/73)
                                                                      By order of 21 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
By order of 18 March 1999 the President of the Second                 of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities           the register of Case C-398/96 (reference for a preliminary
has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-192/97:           ruling from Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio):
Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic             Associazione Produttori Vitivinicoli della Provincia di Treviso
of Germany.                                                           and Others v Ministero delle Risorse Agricole, Alimentari e
                                                                      Forestali (Ministero per le Politche Agricole).
(1) OJ No C 212 of 12.7.1997.                                         (1) OJ C 54 of 22.2.1997.


title: Case C-671/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 29 December 2011 — Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer), successor in law to the Office national interprofessionnel des fruits, des légumes, des vins et de l’horticulture (VINIFLHOR) v Société anonyme d'intérêt collectif agricole Unanimes

text:
               24.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 29 December 2011 — Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer), successor in law to the Office national interprofessionnel des fruits, des légumes, des vins et de l’horticulture (VINIFLHOR) v Société anonyme d'intérêt collectif agricole Unanimes
   (Case C-671/11)
   2012/C 89/10
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer), successor in law to the Office national interprofessionnel des fruits, des légumes, des vins et de l’horticulture (VINIFLHOR)

      Defendant: Société anonyme d'intérêt collectif agricole Unanimes

      Questions referred

               1.

               How is the option, granted by Article 2(4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4045/89 of 21 December 1989 on scrutiny by Member States of transactions forming part of the system of financing by the Guarantee Section of the EAGGF, (1) to extend the scrutiny period ‘for periods … preceding or following the 12-month period’ which it defines, to be implemented by a Member State, having regard to, first, the need to protect the Communities’ financial interests, and second, the principle of legal certainty and the necessity to not give the scrutiny authorities indefinite power?

               2.

               In particular:

                           —

                           Must the period scrutinised, in all instances — if the scrutiny is not to be marred by an irregularity which the person scrutinised may rely on against the decision giving due effect to the results of the scrutiny — end during the twelve month period which precedes the ‘scrutiny’ period during which the scrutiny operations are carried out?

                           —

                           In the event of a positive reply to the preceding question, how must the option, expressly provided for by the regulation, to extend the period of scrutiny for periods ‘following the 12-month period’ be understood?

                           —

                           In the event of a negative reply to the first question, must the scrutiny period nevertheless — if the scrutiny is not to be marred by an irregularity which the scrutinised person may rely on against the decision giving due effect to the results of the scrutiny — include a twelve month period which ends during the scrutiny period preceding that during which the scrutiny was carried out, or, on the contrary, may the scrutiny cover only a period which ends before the beginning of the preceding scrutiny period?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 4045/89 of 21 December 1989 on scrutiny by Member States of transactions forming part of the system of financing by the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund and repealing Directive 77/435/EEC (OJ 1989 L 388, p. 18).


title: Case C-516/11 P: Appeal brought on 7 October 2011 by ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs NV against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Eighth Chamber) on 13 July 2011 in Joined Cases T-144/07, T-147/07, T-148/07, T-149/07, T-150/07 and T-154/07 ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs and Others v European Commission

text:
               3.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/12

         Appeal brought on 7 October 2011 by ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs NV against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Eighth Chamber) on 13 July 2011 in Joined Cases T-144/07, T-147/07, T-148/07, T-149/07, T-150/07 and T-154/07 ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs and Others v European Commission
   (Case C-516/11 P)
   2011/C 355/19
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Appellant: ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs NV (represented by: O.W. Brouwer and J. Blockx, advocaten)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal of the General Court of 13 July 2011 in so far as the General Court rejected the pleas put forward by the appellant at first instance;

               —

               give judgment in this case and annul Commission Decision C(2007) 512 final (1) of 21 February 2007 in Case COMP/E-1/38.823 — Elevators and Escalators on the basis of the relevant pleas put forward at first instance and/or reduce the fine imposed on ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs NV;

               —

               in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the appellant;

               —

               in the further alternative, refer the case back to the General Court;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant puts forward four grounds in support of its appeal.

               1.

               Infringement of Article 81(1) (now Article 101(1)) EC since the infringements are not capable of appreciably affecting trade between Member States and the Commission unlawfully initiated the investigation procedure.

               2.

               Breach of the ne bis in idem principle.

               3.

               Infringement of Article 23 of Regulation 1/2003, (2) Articles 48(1) and 49(1) and (3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of the principle that penalties must fit the offence on account of the confirmation of the appellant’s joint and several liable for the entire amount of the fine calculated on the basis of the group turnover.

               4.

               Error of assessment and unlawful omission by the General Court, in so far as it failed to make any use of its unlimited jurisdiction in the area of fines, inter alia as regards the extent of the market concerned, the multiplier for deterrence and the cooperation in and outside the context of the 2002 Leniency Notice.

      (1)  Summary in OJ 2008 C 75, p. 19.

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


title: Case C-75/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hof van Beroep te Antwerpen by order of that Court of 11 February 2004 in the case of Ministerie van Financiën against 1...., 2. Hendrick Hanssens, 3. Rudi Verhoeven, 4. World Wide Shipping and Forwarding N.V.

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/24

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hof van Beroep te Antwerpen by order of that Court of 11 February 2004 in the case of Ministerie van Financiën against 1...., 2. Hendrick Hanssens, 3. Rudi Verhoeven, 4. World Wide Shipping and Forwarding N.V.
   (Case C-75/04)
   (2004/C 94/52)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Hof van Beroep te Antwerpen (Court of Appeal) of 11 February 2004, received at the Court Registry on 17 February 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ministerie van Financiën against 1...., 2. Hendrick Hanssens, 3. Rudi Verhoeven, 4. World Wide Shipping and Forwarding N.V. on the following questions:

               1.

               For the purpose of determining the customs debt in accordance with Article 201 et seq. of the Community Customs Code (Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 (1)), in the event of non-discharge of T1 documents issued for purposes of exportation to various countries of a consignment of non-Community goods (in casu, textile goods/T-shirts) in transit, where the non-discharge is the result of prior removal from customs supervision, must the first infringement, that is to say, the removal from transit, be taken into account, or must, rather, account be taken of what is chronologically the subsequent infringement, consisting in the non-discharge of the relevant T1 documents? In other words, does the customs debt arise as against a declarant acting in good faith in respect of non-discharge of T1 documents resulting from prior removal from transit – in which the declarant was in no way involved – on the basis of Articles 203(1) and 215(1) of the Community Customs Code or on the basis of Articles 204(1) and 215(3) of the Community Customs Code?

               2.

               Can the declarant still invoke the guarantees contained in Article 222 of the Community Customs Code if Articles 204(1) and 215(3) thereof are applicable in the case where the declarant is faced with non-discharge of the T1 documents issued by him as a result of prior fraudulent withdrawal from transit of non-Community goods (in casu, textile goods), in which the declarant was uninvolved, or, in other words, is Article 222 of the Community Customs Code, which, inter alia, refers to the general rule of Article 203 of that Code – for the application of which Article 204 of that Code is a more specific provision – linked for purposes of application with Articles 204(1) and 215(3) of the Community Customs Code?

      (1)  OJ L 302 of 19.10.1992, p. 1


title: Case T-16/16: Action brought on 19 January 2016 — Mast-Jägermeister v OHIM (Beaker)

text:
               7.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/25

         Action brought on 19 January 2016 — Mast-Jägermeister v OHIM (Beaker)
   (Case T-16/16)
   (2016/C 090/34)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Mast-Jägermeister SE (Wolfenbüttel, Germany) (represented by: H. Schrammek, C. Drzymalla, S. Risthaus, and J. Engberding, lawyers)

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

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Design at issue: Community design ‘Beaker’ — Application for registration No 2683615-0001 and 2683615-0002

      Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 November 2015 in Case R 1842/2015-3

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               recognise 17 April 2015 as the day of filing for Community design No 002683615-0001 and 002683615-0002;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 45(1), Article 46(2) and (3) of Regulation No 6/2002 read in conjunction with Article 36(1)(c) and Article 38(1) of Regulation No 6/2002;

               —

               Infringement of the second sentence of Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002.


title: Case T-851/16: Action brought on 30 November 2016 — Access Info Europe v Commission

text:
               20.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 53/31

         Action brought on 30 November 2016 — Access Info Europe v Commission
   (Case T-851/16)
   (2017/C 053/39)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Access Info Europe (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: O. Brouwer, E. Raedts and J. Wolfhagen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul decision C(2016) 6029 of the Commission of 19 September 2016 refusing to grant access to documents requested by the applicant pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1);

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs for conducting the proceedings including the costs of any intervening parties.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission misapplied Article 4(1)(a), third indent, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 by deciding that access to the requested documents would seriously undermine international relations.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission misapplied Article 4(2), second indent, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 by deciding that access to the requested documents would seriously undermine the protection of pending court proceedings initiated in cases T-192/16, T-193/16 and T-257/16 and that access to the said documents would undermine the Commission’s interest in seeking legal advice and receiving frank, objective and comprehensive advice. It is also argued under this plea that the Commission failed to recognize that access to the requested documents is of overriding public interest and that they should for that reason be disclosed.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission misapplied Article 4(3), first and second subparagraph, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 by deciding that access to the requested documents would seriously undermine the decision-making process and/or by failing to recognize the existence of an overriding public interest, particularly given that the decision-making process in question has been finalised.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging, in subsidiary order, that the Commission misapplied Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 by not granting at least partial access to the requested documents which it withheld in their entirety.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43.


title: Case T-458/07: Action brought on 17 December 2007 — Dominio de la Vega v OHIM — Ambrosio Velasco (DOMINIO DE LA VEGA)

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/47

         Action brought on 17 December 2007 — Dominio de la Vega v OHIM — Ambrosio Velasco (DOMINIO DE LA VEGA)
   (Case T-458/07)
   (2008/C 51/88)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Dominio de la Vega, S.L. (Requena, Spain) (represented by: E. Caballero Oliver, lawyer and A. Sanz-Bernell y Martinéz, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Ambrosio Velasco, S.A. (Dicastillo, Navarra, Spain)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 October 2007 (Case R 1431/2006-2) and consequently dismiss the opposition filed by Ambrosio Velasco, S.A.;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Dominio de la Vega, S.L.

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘DOMINIO DE LA VEGA’ for goods in Classes 33, 42 and 43 (Application No 2.789.576).

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Ambrosio Velasco, S.A.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative Community trade mark ‘PALACIO DE LA VEGA’ for goods in Class 33.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld for all those goods, in Class 33, against which it was directed, and rejection of the application for those goods.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: Incorrect application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) since there is no likelihood of confusion between the signs in dispute.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: Case C-52/15 P: Appeal brought on 6 February 2015 by Arthur Lambauer against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 11 December 2014 in Case T-490/14, Arthur Lambauer v Council of the European Union

text:
               12.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 337/2

         Appeal brought on 6 February 2015 by Arthur Lambauer against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 11 December 2014 in Case T-490/14, Arthur Lambauer v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-52/15 P)
   (2015/C 337/02)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Arthur Lambauer

      Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union
   By order of 3 September 2015 the Court of Justice of the European Union (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to bear his own costs.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 April 1999 in Joined Cases T-305/94, T-306/94, T-307/94, T-313/94, T-314/94, T-315/94, T-316/94, T-318/94, T-325/94, T-328/94, T-329/94 and T-335/94: Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij NV and Others v. Commission of the European Communities (Competition - article 85 of the EC Treaty - Effects of a judgment annulling a measure - Rights of the defence - Fine)

text:
5.6.1999                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 160/17
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                         of 11 March 1999                                                          of 20 April 1999
in Case T-157/94: Empresa Nacional Siderúrgica, SA                        in Joined Cases T-305/94, T-306/94, T-307/94, T-313/94,
(Ensidesa) v. Commission of the European Communi-                          T-315/94, T-316/94, T-318/94, T-325/94, T-328/94,
                                 ties (1)                                  T-329/94 and T-335/94: Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij
                                                                           NV and Others v. Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties (1)
(ECSC Treaty — Competition — Agreements between
undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and                (Competition — article 85 of the EC Treaty — Effects of a
concerted practices — Price-fixing — Market sharing —                      judgment annulling a measure — Rights of the defence —
            Systems for the exchange of information)                                                     Fine)
                           (1999/C 160/33)                                                          (1999/C 160/34)
                     (Language of the case: Spanish)                       (Languages of the case: German, English, French, Italian and Dutch)
In case T-157/94: Empresa Nacional Siderúrgica, SA (Ensidesa),            In cases T-305/94, T-306/94, T-307/94, T-313/94, T-315/94,
having its registered office in Avilés (Spain), represented by             T-316/94, T-318/94, T-325/94, T-328/94, T-329/94 and
Santiago Martinez Lage and Jaime Pérez-Bustamante Köster, of               T-335/94 : Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij NV, established in
the Madrid Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at               Brussels, represented by Inne G. F. Cath, an advocate with right
the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31, Grand-Rue, v. Commission                   of audience before the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, with an
of the European Communities (Agents: initially Julian Currall,             address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Lambert
Francisco Enrique González-Diaz and Géraud Sajust de Bergu-               Dupong, 4-6, rue de la Boucherie, ELF Atochem SA, established
es, and subsequently Jean-Louis Dewost, Julian Currall and Guy             in Paris, represented by Xavier de Roux, Charles-Henri Léger
Charrier, assisted by Ricardo Garcı́a Vicente) — application for           and Jacques-Philippe Gunther, all of the Paris Bar, with an
the annulment of Commission Decision 94/215/ECSC of                        address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jacques
16 February 1994 relating to a proceeding pursuant to article              Loesch, 11, rue Goethe, BASF AG, established in Ludwigshafen,
65 of the ECSC Treaty concerning agreements and concerted                  Germany, represented by Ferdinand Hermanns, of the Düssel-
practices engaged in by European producers of beams (OJ                    dorf Bar, with an address for service at the Chambers of
L 116, 6.5.1994, p. 1) — the Court of First Instance                       Jacques Loesch and Marc Wolters, 11, rue Goethe, Shell
(Second Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of:                       International Chemical Company Ltd, established in London,
C. W. Bellamy, acting as President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung,             represented by Kenneth B. Parker, QC, instructed by John
Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar,            W. Osborne, Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxem-
has given a judgment on 11 March 1999, in which it:                        bourg at the Chambers of Jean Hoss, 2, place Winston
                                                                           Churchill, DSM NV and DSM Kunststoffen BV, established in
                                                                           Heerlen, Netherlands, represented by Inne G F. Cath, an
1. fixes at EUR 3 350 000 the amount of the fine imposed on the            advocate with a right of audience before the Hoge Raad der
     applicant by article 4 of Commission Decision 94/215/ECSC of          Nederlanden, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
     16 February 1994 relating to a proceeding pursuant to article 65      Chambers of Lambert Dupong, 4-6, rue de la Boucherie,
     of the ECSC Treaty concerning agreements and concerted practices      Wacker-Chemie GmbH, established in Munich, Germany,
     engaged in by European producers of beams,                            Hoechst AG, established in Frankfurt-am-Main, Germany, both
                                                                           represented by Hans Hellmann and Hans-Joachim Hellmann,
                                                                           Rechtsanwälte, Cologne, with an address for service in Luxem-
2. dismisses the remainder of the action,                                  bourg at the Chambers of Jacques Loesch and Marc Wolters,
                                                                           11, rue Goethe, Société artésienne de Vinyle, established in
                                                                           Paris, represented by Bernard van de Walle de Ghelcke, of the
3. orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay three             Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
     quarters of the defendant’s costs. The defendant shall bear a         Chambers of Alex Schmitt, 7, Val Sainte-Croix, Montedison
     quarter of its own costs.                                             SpA, established in Milan, Italy, represented by Giuseppe
                                                                           Celona, Giorgio Aghina, of the Milan Bar, and Piero Angelo
                                                                           Maria Ferrari, of the Rome Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                           Luxembourg at the Chambers of Georges Margue, 20, rue
(1) OJ C 146, 28.5.1994.                                                   Philippe II, Imperial Chemical Industries plc, established in
                                                                           London, represented by David Vaughan QC and David Ander-
                                                                           son, Barrister, instructed by Victor White and Richard Coles,
                                                                           Solicitors, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                           Chambers of Lambert Dupong, 4-6, rue de la Boucherie, Hüls
                                                                           AG, established in Marl, Germany, represented initially by
 ---pagebreak--- C 160/18                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        5.6.1999
Hansjürgen Herrmann, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne, and sub-                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
sequently by Frank Montag, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jacques
Loesch, 11, rue Goethe, Enichem SpA, established in Milan,
represented by Mario Siragusa, of the Rome Bar, and Francesca                                       of 25 March 1999
Maria Moretti, of the Bologna Bar, with an address for service
at the Chambers of Elvinger, Hoss and Prussen, 2, place
Winston Churchill v. Commission of the European Communi-
ties (Agents : represented initially by Berend Jan Drijber, Julian          in Case T-102/96: Gencor Ltd v. Commission of the
Currall and Marc van der Woude, assisted by Éric Morgan de                                   European Communities (1)
Rivery, Alexandre Böhlke, David Lloyd Jones, Renzo Maria
Morresi and Nicholas Forwood, and subsequently by Julian
Currall, also assisted by Marc van der Woude) — application                 (Competition - Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 — Decision
for the annulment of Commission Decision 94/599/EC of                       declaring a concentration incompatible with the common
27 July 1994 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 85                market — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Legal
of the EC Treaty (IV/31.865 - PVC) (OJ L 239, 14.9.1994,                    interest in bringing proceedings — Territorial scope of
p. 14) — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber, Extended               Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 — Collective dominant pos-
Composition), composed of: V. Tiili, President, K. Lenaerts and                                  ition — Commitments)
A. Potocki, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 April 1999, in which it:
                                                                                (1999/C 160/35)
1. joins cases T-305/94, T-306/94, T-307/94, T-313/94,
     T-314/94, T-315/94, 316/94, T-318/94, T-325/94,
     T-328/94, T-329/94 and T-335/94 for the purposes of the
     judgment,
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
2. annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision 94/599/EC of 27 July
     1994 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the EC         In case T-102/96: Gencor Ltd, established in Johannesburg,
     Treaty (IV/31.865 - PVC) in so far as it holds that Société            Republic of South Africa, represented by Paul Lasok QC,
     artésienne de Vinyle participated in the infringement in question      instructed by James Flynn and David Hall, Solicitors, London,
     after the first half of 1981,                                          with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                            Marc Loesch, 11, rue Goethe, v. Commission of the European
                                                                            Communities (Agent: Richard Lyal), supported by Federal
                                                                            Republic of Germany, represented by Ernst Röder, Minis-
3. reduces the fines imposed by Article 3 of that decision on Elf           terialrat, and Bernd Kloke, Oberregierungsrat, application for
     Atochem SA, Société artésienne de Vinyle and Imperial Chemical         the annulment of Commission Decision 97/26/EC of 24 April
     Industries plc to EUR 2 600 000, EUR 135 000 and EUR                   1996 declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the
     1 550 000 respectively,                                                common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement
                                                                            (Case No IV/M.619 — Gencor /Lonrho) (OJ L 11, 14.1.1997,
                                                                            p. 30) — the Court (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition),
4. dismisses the remainder of the actions,                                  composed of: J. Azizi, President, B. Vesterdorf, R. Garcı́a-
                                                                            Valdecasas, R. M. Moura Ramos and M. Jaeger; J. Palacio
                                                                            González and A. Mair, Administrators, for the Registrar, has
                                                                            given a judgment on 25 March 1999, in which it:
5. orders each applicant to bear both its own costs and those of the
     Commission in the case which it has brought. However, in Cases
     T-307/94 and T-328/94, Elf Atochem SA, Imperial Chemical               1. dismisses the application,
     Industries plc and the Commission are each ordered to bear their
     own costs. In Case T-318/94, Société artésienne de Vinyle is
     ordered to bear two thirds of its own costs and the Commission         2. orders the applicant to bear its own costs and those incurred by
     is ordered to bear one third of the applicant’s costs in addition to        the Commission,
     its own costs.
                                                                            3. orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.
(1) OJ C 331, 26.11.1994.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 247, 24.8.1996.


title: Case T-177/12: Judgment of the General Court of 2 October 2014 — Spraylat v ECHA (REACH — Fee for registration of a substance — Reduction granted to micro-, small and medium-sized enterprises — Error in declaration relating to the size of the enterprise — Decision imposing an administrative charge — Proportionality)

text:
               10.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 395/37

      Judgment of the General Court of 2 October 2014 — Spraylat v ECHA
      (Case T-177/12) (1)

      ((REACH - Fee for registration of a substance - Reduction granted to micro-, small and medium-sized enterprises - Error in declaration relating to the size of the enterprise - Decision imposing an administrative charge - Proportionality))
      (2014/C 395/44)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Spraylat GmbH (Aachen, Germany) (represented by: K. Fischer, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: M. Heikkilä, A. Iber and C. Schultheiss, Agents, and M. Kuschewsky, lawyer)

         Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: D. Düsterhaus and E. Manhaeve, and subsequently by B. Eggers and M. Manhaeve, Agents)

         Re:

      Action for annulment of invoice No 10030371 issued by the ECHA on 21 February 2012 setting the amount of the administrative charge imposed on the applicant and a precautionary application to annul Decision SME (2012) 1445 of the ECHA of 15 February 2012 which states that the applicant does not fulfil the conditions to receive a reduction of the fee for small enterprises and imposing an administrative charge on it.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls Decision SME (2012) 1445 of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) of 15 February 2012 and invoice No 10030371 issued by the ECHA on 21 February 2012;

                  2.

                  Orders the ECHA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Spraylat GmbH;

                  3.

                  Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 174, 16.6.2012.


title: Case C-568/07: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 43 EC and 48 EC — Opticians — Conditions of establishment — Establishment and operation of opticians’ shops — Incomplete compliance with a judgment of the Court — Lump sum)

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/11

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-568/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Articles 43 EC and 48 EC - Opticians - Conditions of establishment - Establishment and operation of opticians’ shops - Incomplete compliance with a judgment of the Court - Lump sum)
   2009/C 180/18
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Zavvos and E. Traversa, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E. Skandalou, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to comply fully with the Court’s judgment of 21 April 2005 in Case C-140/03 Commission v Greece concerning infringement of Articles 43 and 48 EC with regard to the ownership, establishment and operation of shops for the sale of optical articles — National law allowing only authorised opticians to own opticians’ shops — Application for the setting of a penalty payment

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to take, by the date on which the time-limit set in the reasoned opinion issued by the Commission pursuant to Article 228 EC expired, all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 21 April 2005 in Case C-140/03 Commission v Greece, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 228(1) EC.

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay into the ‘European Community own resources’ account of the Commission of the European Communities a lump sum of EUR 1 million.

               3.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.


title: Case T-160/16: Action brought on 15 April 2016 — Groningen Seaports and Others v Commission

text:
               6.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/29

         Action brought on 15 April 2016 — Groningen Seaports and Others v Commission
   (Case T-160/16)
   (2016/C 200/42)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicants: Groningen Seaports NV (Delfzijl, Netherlands), Havenbedrijf Amsterdam NV (Amsterdam, Netherlands), Havenbedrijf Rotterdam NV (Rotterdam, Netherlands), Havenschap Moerdijk (Moerdijk, Netherlands), NV Port of Den Helder (Den Helder, Netherlands), Zeeland Seaports NV (Terneuzen, Netherlands) (represented by: E. Pijnacker Hordijk and I. Kieft, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicants challenge the Commission Decision of 21 January 2016 on aid measure SA.25338 (2014/C) (ex E 3/2008 and ex CP 115/2004) implemented by the Netherlands — Corporate tax exemption for public undertakings.
   In support of their action, the applicants rely on a single plea in law.
   Single plea in law, alleging failure to comply with the objectives of the State-aid rules, infringement of the general principles of EU law, in particular the principle of equality, the requirement that decisions should be prepared with due care and the prohibition of arbitrary conduct, and breach of the obligation to state reasons.

               —

               The public seaports in the Netherlands compete, not with Dutch private undertakings, but with French, Belgian and German seaports in the Hamburg-Le Havre range.

               —

               Those European competitors receive, to the detriment of the Dutch public seaports, a variety of forms of State aid. The Commission was aware of this when it adopted the contested decision. In the same way as the Dutch public seaports, all competing seaports within the Hamburg-Le Havre range enjoy an exemption from corporate tax. In addition, the German seaports receive very substantial operating aid in the form of loss compensation. The Commission was also aware of this when it adopted the contested decision.

               —

               The contested decision unilaterally abolishes the tax exemption in force for the Dutch public seaports, whereas the corresponding exemptions for the Belgian and French seaports are being maintained for the time being and there has as yet not even been a first formal procedural step taken towards abolishing aid to the German seaports.

               —

               Since the Commission, by means of the contested decision, addresses only the tax exemption for the Dutch public seaports, the already uneven playing field for the European port sector is worsened significantly and the Commission places the Dutch public seaports in a markedly worse position vis-à-vis their direct competitors, which are also exempt from corporate tax and, in addition, also receive other forms of State aid. The Commission fails to provide reasons why it is intervening only with regard to the tax exemption for the Dutch public seaports.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 June 2003 in Case C-442/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): KapHag Renditefonds 35 Spreecenter Berlin-Hellersdorf 3. Tranche GbR v Finanzamt Charlottenburg (Sixth VAT Directive — Scope — Supply of services for consideration — Admission of a member to a partnership in consideration of payment of a contribution in cash)

text:
C 184/14                EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                                 2.8.2003
Design Concept SA and Flanders Expo SA, on the interpretation                 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member
of Article 9(2)(e) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of                   States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value
17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member                    added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1),
States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value                    the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, Presi-
added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1),                 dent of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, F. Macken, N. Colneric and
the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President                J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo
of the Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, D.A.O. Edward, A. La                       Colomer, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator,
Pergola and S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs,                    for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 26 June 2003, in
Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the              which it has ruled:
Registrar, has given a judgment on 5 June 2003, in which it has
ruled:
                                                                              A partnership which admits a partner in consideration of payment of a
                                                                              contribution in cash does not effect towards that person a supply of
Article 9(2)(e) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May               services for consideration within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Sixth
1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating           Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisa-
to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform                 tion of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —
basis of assessment must be interpreted as applying to advertising            Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment.
services supplied indirectly to the advertiser and invoiced to an inter-
mediate customer who in turn invoices them to the advertiser. The fact
that the advertiser does not produce goods or services in the price of        (1) OJ C 56 of 2.3.2002.
which the cost of the advertising services may be included is not
relevant for the purpose of determining the place where the services are
supplied to the intermediate customer.
(1) OJ C 84 of 6.04.2002.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                                  of 12 June 2003
                           (Sixth Chamber)                                    in Case C-446/01: Commission of the European Commu-
                                                                                nities v Kingdom of Spain (1)
                           of 26 June 2003
                                                                              (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
                                                                                75/442/EEC — Environment — Waste management)
in Case C-442/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Bundesfinanzhof): KapHag Renditefonds 35 Spree-
center Berlin-Hellersdorf 3. Tranche GbR v Finanzamt                                                      (2003/C 184/27)
                           Charlottenburg (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
(Sixth VAT Directive — Scope — Supply of services for
consideration — Admission of a member to a partnership
    in consideration of payment of a contribution in cash)                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
                                                                                the European Court Reports)
                            (2003/C 184/26)
                    (Language of the case: German)                            In Case C-446/01, Commission of the European Communities
                                                                              (Agent: G. Valero Jordana) v Kingdom of Spain (Agent:
                                                                              L. Fraguas Gadea): Application for a declaration that, by failing
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in     to adopt the measures necessary to ensure, as regards certain
                      the European Court Reports)                             waste-disposal sites, the implementation of Articles 4, 9 and,
                                                                              where relevant, 13 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July
                                                                              1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39), as amended by Council
                                                                              Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32),
In Case C-442/01: Reference to the Court under                                the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Article 234 EC by the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) for a                         that directive, the Court (Third Chamber), composed of:
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                     J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann and
court between KapHag Renditefonds 35 Spreecenter Berlin-                      J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed,
Hellersdorf 3. Tranche GbR and Finanzamt Charlottenburg, on                   Advocate General, R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
the interpretation of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of                   on 12 June 2003, in which it:


title: Case T-222/17: Action brought on 18 April 2017 — Recylex a.o. v Commission

text:
               19.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/34

         Action brought on 18 April 2017 — Recylex a.o. v Commission
   (Case T-222/17)
   (2017/C 195/48)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Recylex SA (Paris, France), Fonderie et Manufacture de Métaux (Anderlecht, Belgium), Harz-Metall GmbH (Goslar, Germany) (represented by: M. Wellinger, S. Reinart and K. Bongs, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               reduce the amount of the fine imposed upon them in the decision of the European Commission of 8 February 2017 (C(2017) 900 final) relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFUE;

               —

               grant the applicants payment terms, and

               —

               order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in not applying to the applicants point 26 (final paragraph) of the Leniency Notice (1) as regards the duration of the infringement.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in not applying to the applicants point 26 (final paragraph) of the Leniency Notice as regards the infringement concerning France.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in applying a specific increase of 10 % in the calculation of the fine based on point 37 of the Fining Guidelines (2).

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in not granting the applicants a reduction of 50 % in the fine pursuant to the first hyphen of point 26 of the Leniency Notice.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination as well as the principle that the fine must be specific to the offender.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Court is requested to use its unlimited jurisdiction to grant the applicant payment terms for any part of the fine still due.

      (1)  Commission Notice on Immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ 2006, C 298, p. 17), as last amended by the Communication from the Commission on Amendments to the Commission Notice on Immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ 2015, C 256, p. 1).

      (2)  Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 (OJ 2006, C 210, p. 2).


title: Case C-695/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 23 December 2015 — Shiraz Baig Mirza v Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal

text:
               7.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 23 December 2015 — Shiraz Baig Mirza v Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal
   (Case C-695/15)
   (2016/C 090/13)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Shiraz Baig Mirza

      Defendant: Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal

      Questions referred

               1.

               Should Article 3(3) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (1) (‘the Dublin III Regulation’) be interpreted as meaning that

                           (a)

                           Member States may exercise the right to send an applicant to a safe third country only before determining the Member State responsible or that they may also exercise that right after making that determination?

                           (b)

                           Is the answer to the preceding question different if the Member State establishes that it is the State responsible not at the time when the application is first lodged with its authorities in accordance with Article 7(2) of the Dublin III Regulation and Chapter III of that regulation but when it receives the applicant from another Member State following a transfer or take back request pursuant to Chapters V and VI of the Dublin III Regulation?

               2.

               If, on the basis of the interpretation given by the Court in response to the first question, the right to send an applicant to a safe third country may also be exercised after a transfer carried out pursuant to the Dublin procedure:
               Can Article 3(3) of the Dublin III Regulation be interpreted as meaning that Member States may also exercise that right if, in the course of the Dublin procedure, the Member State carrying out the transfer has not been informed of the precise national rules governing the exercise of that right or of the practice applied by the national authorities?

               3.

               Can Article 18(2) of the Dublin III Regulation be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of an applicant who has been taken back pursuant to Article 18[(1)](c) of that regulation, the procedure must be continued at the stage where it was discontinued during the preceding procedure?

      (1)  OJ 2013 L 180, p. 31.


title: Case T-277/01: Action brought on 26 October 2001 by Romuald Stevens against Commission of the European Communities

text:
5.1.2002              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 3/47
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          on 26 October 2001 by Mély Garroni, residing in Rome,
                                                                         represented by Georges Vandersanden, lawyer.
The applicant is a freelance interpreter who has worked
regularly for the European Parliament since 1986. She has also           The applicant claims that the Court should:
worked regularly in the same capacity for the Commission. In
the course of the month in which she reached the age of 65,
the applicant was informed orally that the Commission had                —     annul the inter-institutional decision of the European
purportedly adopted a decision providing that, under a full                    Union, as referred to in the letter from G. Macario of
application of Article 78 of the Conditions of Employment of                   24 January 2001, rendering henceforth impossible for
Other Servants of the European Communities (CEOS), free-                       the European Parliament, as a result of the application of
lance interpreters could no longer be engaged beyond the age                   Article 78 CEOS, as amended, to retain or recruit freelance
of 65. In December 2000 the applicant learned informally that                  interpreters — such as the applicant — beyond the age
the European Parliament was obliged to apply that decision                     of 65 years;
with effect from 1 April 2001.
                                                                         —     in so far as necessary, annul the decision of the President
                                                                               of the European Parliament, contained in a letter of
The applicant, among others, lodged a complaint against the                    20 July 2001, rejecting the applicant’s complaint;
memorandum informing her of the inter-institutional decision
no longer to recruit freelance interpreters over the age of 65
years. The President of the European Parliament rejected that            —     consequently uphold the applicant’s right to continue to
complaint.                                                                     provide services to the European Parliament — or any
                                                                               other institution — beyond the age-limit of 65 years;
In support of her application, the applicant claims that                 —     order provisional payment of one euro to the applicant
Article 78 CEOS cannot be relied upon as a basis for a rule                    by way of compensation for the material and non-
setting the age of 65 years as a limit for freelance interpreters.             material damage suffered;
That provision is a derogation from the Staff Regulations and
refers to an agreement between the European Parliament, the              —     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
Council of Europe and the Assembly of the Western European
Union. Article 78 makes no mention, either express or implied,
of Article 74 CEOS which provides for the termination of
auxiliary staff contracts; moreover, freelance interpreters do
not have a contract within the meaning of Article 74 CEOS.               Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant pleads, furthermore, breach of the principle of            The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
non-retroactivity and of the principle of non-discrimination             relied upon in Case T-275/01 Alvarez Moreno v Parliament.
and of acquired rights, legitimate expectations, sound adminis-
tration and legal certainty. In addition to her claims for
annulment, the applicant also seeks compensation for the
material and non-material damage allegedly suffered.
                                                                         Action brought on 26 October 2001 by Romuald Stevens
                                                                             against Commission of the European Communities
Action brought on 26 October 2001 by Mély Garroni                                                (Case T-277/01)
                 against European Parliament
                                                                                (2002/C 3/82)
                        (Case T-276/01)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                         (2002/C 3/81)
                   (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
                                                                         European Communities on 26 October 2001 by Romuald
An action against the European Parliament was brought before             Stevens, residing in Bertem (Belgium), represented by Jean-
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                  Noël Louis and Véronique Peere, lawyers.
 ---pagebreak--- C 3/48                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       5.1.2002
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             —     order the defendant to pay compensation amounting to
                                                                              EUR 25 000 for non-material damage;
—     annul the decision of the Commission of 14 December
      2001 imposing on the applicant the disciplinary sanction          —     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
      referred to in Article 86(2)(f) of the Staff Regulations,
      namely removal from post without reduction or with-
      drawal of entitlement to retirement pension;
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                        In support of his application, the applicant pleads infringement
                                                                        of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations and of the general
                                                                        provisions for the implementation of that article. The applicant
                                                                        pleads, moreover, numerous errors and contradictions con-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         tained in the staff report, lack of statement of reasons and
                                                                        breach of the rights of defence.
In support of his application, the applicant relies on Article 87
of the Staff Regulations and Article 7 of the Annex thereto.
According to the applicant, he was not given a proper hearing
during the disciplinary proceedings leading to the sanction in
question. Moreover, the applicant pleads breach of the obli-
gation to state reasons, manifest error of assessment and               Action brought on 5 November 2001 by Giorgio Lebedef
breach of the principle of proportionality.                                 against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-279/01)
                                                                                (2002/C 3/84)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Action brought on 26 October 2001 by Eric den Hamer
    against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                        (Case T-278/01)                                 European Communities on 5 November 2001 by Giorgio
                                                                        Lebedef, residing in Senningerberg (Luxembourg), represented
                                                                        by Gilles Bounéou, lawyer, with an address for service in
                         (2002/C 3/83)                                  Luxembourg.
                  (Language of the case: French)                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        —     annul in part Decision No 3019 of 13 November 2000
                                                                              of the appointing authority, received on 17 November
                                                                              2000. More precisely, in so far as it awards BEF 25 000 to
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                     the applicant as compensation for the non-material
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                    damage arising from the delay in drawing up his staff
European Communities on 26 October 2001 by Eric den                           reports for the periods 1 July 1995 to 30 June 1997 and
Hamer, residing in Malines (Belgium), represented by Nicolas                  1 July 1997 to 30 June 1999;
Lhoëst, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                        —     award the applicant BEF 300 000 by way of damages to
                                                                              compensate for the non-material damage arising from
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   the delay in definitively drawing up his staff reports for
                                                                              the periods 1 July 1995 to 30 June 1997;
—     annul the decision of the Commission of 6 December                —     award the applicant BEF 100 000 by way of damages to
      2000 definitively adopting the applicant’s staff report for             compensate for the non-material damage arising from
      1995/1997;                                                              the delay in definitively drawing up his staff reports for
                                                                              the periods 1 July 1997 to 30 June 1999;
—     annul the implied decision of the Commission not to add
      to the applicant’s personal file his two staff reports for        —     make an order as to costs, requiring the defendant to pay
      1995/1997;                                                              all costs, charges and fees.