title: Case C-201/05: Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 23 April 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales (United Kingdom)) — The Test Claimants in the CFC and Dividend Group Litigation v Commissioners of Inland Revenue (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Freedom of establishment — Free movement of capital — Direct taxation — Corporation tax — Share dividends paid to a resident company by a non-resident company — Rules on controlled foreign companies ( CFCs ) — Situation as regards a non-member country — Classification of claims brought against the tax authority — Liability of a Member State for breach of Community law)

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/13

         Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 23 April 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales (United Kingdom)) — The Test Claimants in the CFC and Dividend Group Litigation v Commissioners of Inland Revenue
   (Case C-201/05) (1)

   (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Freedom of establishment - Free movement of capital - Direct taxation - Corporation tax - Share dividends paid to a resident company by a non-resident company - Rules on controlled foreign companies (‘CFCs’) - Situation as regards a non-member country - Classification of claims brought against the tax authority - Liability of a Member State for breach of Community law)
   (2008/C 209/18)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales
   Parties

      Applicant: The Test Claimants in the CFC and Dividend Group Litigation

      Defendant: Commissioners of Inland Revenue
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — Interpretation of Articles 43, 49 and 56 EC — National tax legislation — Corporation tax — Exemption — Dividends paid by other companies to a company established in national territory — Situation differing according to the State where the other companies are established
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               Article 43 EC is to be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude legislation of a Member State which exempts from corporation tax dividends which a resident company receives from another resident company, when that State imposes corporation tax on dividends which a resident company receives from a non-resident company in which the resident company has a shareholding enabling it to exercise a definite influence over the decisions of that non-resident company and to determine its activities, while at the same time granting a tax credit for the tax actually paid by the company making the distribution in the Member State in which it is resident, provided that the rate of tax applied to foreign-sourced dividends is no higher than the rate of tax applied to nationally-sourced dividends and that the tax credit is at least equal to the amount paid in the Member State of the company making the distribution, up to the limit of the amount of the tax charged in the Member State of the company receiving the distribution.
               Article 56 EC is to be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude legislation of a Member State which exempts from corporation tax dividends which a resident company receives from another resident company, when that State imposes corporation tax on dividends which a resident company receives from a non-resident company in which the resident company holds at least 10 % of the voting rights, while granting a tax credit for the tax actually paid by the company making the distribution in the Member State in which it is resident, provided that the rate of tax applied to foreign-sourced dividends is no higher than the rate of tax applied to nationally-sourced dividends and that the tax credit is at least equal to the amount paid in the Member State of the company making the distribution, up to the limit of the amount of the tax charged in the Member State of the company receiving the distribution.
               Article 56 EC is, furthermore, to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes legislation of a Member State which exempts from corporation tax dividends which a resident company receives from another resident company, where that State levies corporation tax on dividends which a resident company receives from a non-resident company in which it holds less than 10 % of the voting rights, without granting the company receiving the dividends a tax credit for the tax actually paid by the company making the distribution in the State in which the latter is resident.

               2.

               Article 56 EC is to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes legislation of a Member State which allows an exemption from corporation tax for certain dividends received from resident companies by resident insurance companies but excludes such an exemption for similar dividends received from non-resident companies, in so far as it entails less favourable treatment of the latter dividends.

               3.

               Articles 43 EC and 48 EC must be interpreted as precluding the inclusion in the tax base of a resident company established in a Member State of profits made by a controlled foreign company in another Member State, where those profits are subject in that State to a lower level of taxation than that applicable in the first State, unless such inclusion relates only to wholly artificial arrangements intended to escape the national tax normally payable.
               Accordingly, such a tax measure must not be applied where it is proven, on the basis of objective factors which are ascertainable by third parties, that despite the existence of tax motives, that controlled foreign company is actually established in the host Member State and carries on genuine economic activities there.
               However, Articles 43 EC and 48 EC are to be interpreted as not precluding national tax legislation which imposes certain compliance requirements where the resident company seeks exemption from taxes already paid on the profits of that controlled foreign company in the State in which it is resident, provided that the aim of those requirements is to verify that the controlled foreign company is actually established and that its economic activities are genuine without that entailing undue administrative constraints.

               4.

               Articles 56 EC to 58 EC are to be interpreted as not precluding the legislation of a Member State which grants a corporation tax concession in respect of certain dividends received from resident companies by resident companies but excludes such a concession for dividends received from companies established in a non-member country particularly where the grant of that concession is subject to conditions compliance with which can be verified by the competent authorities of that Member State only by obtaining information from the non-member country where the distributing company is established.

               5.

               In the absence of Community legislation, it is for the domestic legal system of each Member State to designate the courts and tribunals having jurisdiction and to lay down the detailed procedural rules governing actions for safeguarding rights which individuals derive from Community law, including the classification of claims brought by injured parties before national courts and tribunals. Those courts and tribunals are, however, obliged to ensure that individuals have an effective legal remedy enabling them to obtain reimbursement of the tax unlawfully levied on them and the amounts paid to that Member State or withheld by it directly against that tax. As regards other loss or damage which a person may have sustained by reason of a breach of Community law for which a Member State is liable, the latter is under a duty to make reparation for the loss or damage caused to individuals under the conditions set out in paragraph 51 of the judgment in Joined Cases C-46/93 and C-48/93 Brasserie du Pêcheur and Factortame [1996] ECR I-1029, but that does not preclude the State from being liable under less restrictive conditions, where national law so provides.
               Where it is established that the legislation of a Member State constitutes a restriction on freedom of establishment prohibited by Article 43 EC or a restriction on the free movement of capital prohibited by Article 56 EC, the national court may, in order to establish the recoverable losses, determine whether the injured parties have shown reasonable diligence in order to avoid those losses or to limit their extent and whether, in particular, they availed themselves in time of all legal remedies available to them. However, in order to prevent the exercise of the rights which Articles 43 EC and 56 EC confer on individuals from being rendered impossible or excessively difficult, the national court may determine whether the application of that legislation, coupled, where appropriate, with the relevant provisions of Double Taxation Conventions, would, in any event, have led to the failure of the claims brought by the claimants in the main proceedings before the tax authorities of the Member State concerned.

      (1)  OJ C 182, 23.7.2005.


title: Case C-145/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 July 2015 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Environment — Directive 1999/31/EC — Article 14 — Landfill of waste — Non-hazardous waste — Non-conformity of existing landfills)

text:
               21.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/11

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 July 2015 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria
   (Case C-145/14) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Environment - Directive 1999/31/EC - Article 14 - Landfill of waste - Non-hazardous waste - Non-conformity of existing landfills))
   (2015/C 311/11)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Petrova and E. Sanfrutos Cano, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Bulgaria (represented by E. Petranova and D. Drambozova, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that by failing to adopt the necessary measures to ensure that, as from 16 July 2009, the existing landfills for non-hazardous waste in its territory do not continue to function unless they satisfy the requirements of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 14(a) to (c) of that directive;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission and the Republic of Bulgaria to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 159, 26.5.2014.


title: Case T-409/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 September 2009 — Cohausz v OHIM — Izquierdo Faces (acopat) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community figurative mark acopat — Earlier national word marks COPAT — Relative ground for refusal — No genuine use of the earlier marks — Article 56(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 57(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/61

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 September 2009 — Cohausz v OHIM — Izquierdo Faces (acopat)
   (Case T-409/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community figurative mark acopat - Earlier national word marks COPAT - Relative ground for refusal - No genuine use of the earlier marks - Article 56(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 57(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2009/C 267/107
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Helge B. Cohausz (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented initially by: I. Friedhoff, lawyer, and subsequently by S. von Petersdorff-Campen and H. Timmann, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the Court of First Instance: José Izquierdo Faces (Bilbao, Spain) (represented by: H. Bock, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 September 2007 (Case R 289/2006-1) relating to invalidity proceedings between Helge B. Cohausz and José Izquierdo Faces.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Mr Helge B. Cohausz to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 8, 12.1.2008.


title: Joined Cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 September 2008 — Yassin Abdullah Kadi, Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council of the European Union, Commission of the European Communities, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) — Restrictive measures directed against persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban — United Nations — Security Council — Resolutions adopted under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter — Implementation within the Community — Common Position 2001/154/CFSP — Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 — Measures directed at persons and entities included in a list drawn up by a body of the United Nations — Freezing of funds and economic resources — Committee of the Security Council established by paragraph 6 of Resolution 1267 (1999) of the Security Council (Sanctions Committee) — Inclusion of those persons and entities in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 — Actions for annulment — Competence of the Community — Joint legal basis of Articles 60 EC, 301 EC and 308 EC — Fundamental rights — Right to respect for property, right to be heard and right to effective judicial review)

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 September 2008 — Yassin Abdullah Kadi, Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council of the European Union, Commission of the European Communities, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Joined Cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) - Restrictive measures directed against persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban - United Nations - Security Council - Resolutions adopted under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter - Implementation within the Community - Common Position 2001/154/CFSP - Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 - Measures directed at persons and entities included in a list drawn up by a body of the United Nations - Freezing of funds and economic resources - Committee of the Security Council established by paragraph 6 of Resolution 1267 (1999) of the Security Council (Sanctions Committee) - Inclusion of those persons and entities in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 - Actions for annulment - Competence of the Community - Joint legal basis of Articles 60 EC, 301 EC and 308 EC - Fundamental rights - Right to respect for property, right to be heard and right to effective judicial review)
   (2008/C 285/03)
   Languages of the case: English and Swedish
   Parties

      Appellants: Yassin Abdullah Kadi (represented by: I. Brownlie, D. Anderson QC, P. Saini, Barrister, and G. Martin, Solicitor), Al Barakaat International Foundation (represented by: L. Silbersky and T. Olsson, advokater)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop, E. Finnegan and E. Karlsson, acting as Agents), Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Brown, J. Enegren and P.J. Kuijper, acting as Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: R. Caudwell, E. Jenkinson and S. Behzadi-Spencer, acting as Agents, and C. Greenwood QC, and A. Dashwood, Barrister)

      Interveners in support of the Council of the European Union: Kingdom of Spain, (represented by: J. Rodríguez Cárcamo, acting as Agent), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, E. Belliard, and S. Gasri, acting as Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: H.G. Sevenster and M. de Mol, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the Commission of the European Communities: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, E. Belliard and S. Gasri, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Appeal lodged against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) of 21 September 2005 in Case T-315/01 Yassin Abdullah Kadi v Council and Commission, in which the Court of First Instance held (a) that there was no need to adjudicate on the application for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2062/2001 of 19 October 2001 amending, for the third time, Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 of 6 March 2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 337/2000 (OJ L 277, p. 25), in so far it added the applicant to the list of persons, entities and bodies affected by the freezing of funds imposed by that regulation, and (b) dismissed as unfounded the application for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 (OJ L 139, p. 9), in so far as those acts concerned him
   Appeal lodged against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) of 21 September 2005 in Case T-306/01 Yusuf and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission, in which the Court of First Instance dismissed an application for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 467/2001
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgments of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 21 September 2005 in Case T-315/01 Kadi v Council and Commission and Case T-306/01 Yusuf and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission;

               2.

               Annuls Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan, in so far as it concerns Mr Kadi and the Al Barakaat International Foundation;

               3.

               Orders the effects of Regulation No 881/2002 to be maintained, so far as concerns Mr Kadi and the Al Barakaat International Foundation, for a period that may not exceed three months running from the date of delivery of this judgment;

               4.

               Orders the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities each to pay, in addition to their own costs, half of those incurred by Mr Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation both at first instance and in these appeals;

               5.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs both at first instance and in these appeals;

               6.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic and the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 36, 11.2.2006.

      OJ C 48, 25.2.2006.


title: Case T-306/14: Action brought on 30 April 2014  — Polymer-Chemie v Commission

text:
               14.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/55

         Action brought on 30 April 2014 — Polymer-Chemie v Commission
   (Case T-306/14)
   2014/C 223/57
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Polymer-Chemie GmbH (Sobernheim, Germany) (represented by: D. Greinacher, J. Martin and B. Scholtka, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul, in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, the Commission’s decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure in relation to the support for the generation of electricity from renewable energy sources and from mine gas in accordance with the Gesetz für den Vorrang erneuerbarer Energien (Law for the priority of renewable energy sources, ‘EEG’) and the reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users against the Federal Republic of Germany — State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) of 18 December 2013, published in the Official Journal of the EU on 7 February 2014 (OJ 2014 C 37, p. 73), in so far as the Commission classifies the special compensation regime pursuant to Paragraphs 40 and 41 of the EEG as State aid within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs necessarily incurred pursuant to Article 87(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: Infringement of Article 107 TFEU
               The applicant claims that the Commission wrongly classified the support for renewable energies by way of the surcharge system and the special compensation regime to reduce the EEG-surcharge as aid and therefore should not have initiated the formal investigation procedure.

                           —

                           In this connection, the applicant contends that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment in the preliminary assessment of the issue of whether the special compensation regime constitutes aid, since the special compensation regime, as an exception to the EEG-surcharge, does not grant any advantage which energy-intensive users would not have obtained under normal market conditions.

                           —

                           The applicant also claims that no State resources are affected. Since the proceeds from the EEG-surcharge already did not constitute State resources, no State resources could be affected even by the exception for energy-intensive users.

                           —

                           The applicant further claims that the special compensation regime also does not distort competition. At most, it establishes the competitive conditions which exist without the EEG-surcharge.

               2.

               Second plea in law: Infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations
               The applicant claims that, by adopting the decision, the Commission also infringes the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations. The German scheme to support renewable energy has already been subject to a thorough State aid assessment. In that assessment, the Commission in 2002 concluded that a transfer of State resources is not linked to that scheme. Since the 2012 EEG does not, in this respect, contain any substantial amendments to the legal position at the time, the economic operators concerned ought not to have expected a re-examination, but should have been entitled to rely on the continuance of the scheme.

               3.

               Third plea in law: Misuse of powers
               Lastly, the applicant considers that the Commission misused the discretion afforded to it under Articles 107 and 108 TFEU. By initiating the investigation procedure, the Commission is primarily pursuing the objective of fundamentally harmonising the support for renewable electricity. That fundamental objective is also evidenced by the new draft guidelines for environmental and energy aid, in which the Commission for the first time lays down detailed schemes to support renewable energies. In order to work towards a harmonisation, the Commission would, however, have to apply the procedure for approximating laws pursuant to Articles 116 and 117 TFEU, which is laid down for that purpose.


title: Case C-129/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt (Germany) lodged on 8 March 2012 — Magdeburger Mühlenwerke GmbH v Finanzamt Magdeburg

text:
               16.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 174/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt (Germany) lodged on 8 March 2012 — Magdeburger Mühlenwerke GmbH v Finanzamt Magdeburg
   (Case C-129/12)
   2012/C 174/23
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Magdeburger Mühlenwerke GmbH

      Defendant: Finanzamt Magdeburg

      Question referred

   Did Commission Decision C(1998) 1712 of 20 May 1998 (1) grant the German legislature discretion in relation to the formulation of point 4 of the second sentence of Paragraph 2 of the Investitionszulagengesetz (‘InvZulG 1996’) (Law on investment grants of 1996) in the version of the Steuerentlastungsgesetz 1999 (Law on tax relief of 1999) of 19 December 1998, whereby a scheme would be covered by that discretion if it promotes investments under that scheme, in relation to which the binding investment decision was made before the expiration of the period for the implementation of the Commission Decision or before the publication of the intended measures in the Bundessteuerblatt (Federal Tax Journal, ‘BStBl’), but the delivery of the capital asset and the determination and disbursement of the grant take place afterwards?

      (1)  1999/183/EC: Commission Decision of 20 May 1998 concerning State aid for the processing and marketing of German agricultural products which might be granted on the basis of existing regional aid schemes (OJ 1999 L 60, p. 61).


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 23 November 1999 in Case T-173/98: Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v Council of the European Union (Manifestly inadmissible)

text:
C 79/26                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      18.3.2000
decision of the Commission of 10 October 1997 imposing on                      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
the applicant the disciplinary measure of downgrading him
from grade D 1, step 8, to grade D 2, step 8, for failure to fulfil                         of 23 November 1999
his obligations under the Staff Regulations — the Court of First
Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas,            in Case T-173/98: Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v
President, P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,                        Council of the European Union (1)
made an order on 24 November 1999, the operative part of
which is as follows:                                                                       (Manifestly inadmissible)
1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.                                                 (2000/C 79/58)
2. The parties shall bear their own costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
(1) OJ 1998 C 312.                                                      In Case T-173/98: Unión de Pequeños Agricultores, established
                                                                        in Madrid, represented by Javier Ledesma Bartret and José-Mar-
                                                                        ia Jiménez Laiglesia y de Oñate, of the Madrid Bar, with an
                                                                        address for service in Luxembourg at the address of Concep-
                                                                        ción Llasser Moyano, 22 Rue Wenkelhiel, Dalheim, against
                                                                        Council of the European Union (Agents: Ignacio Dı́ez Parra
                                                                        and Antonio Tanca) — application for annulment in part of
                                                                        Council Regulation (EC) No 1638/98 of 20 July 1998
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              amending Regulation No 136/66/EEC on the establishment of
                                                                        a common organisation of the market in oils and fats (OJ
                                                                        1998 L 210, p. 32) — the Court of First Instance (Third
                      of 8 December 1999                                Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President, J. Azizi and
                                                                        M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 23 Nov-
in Case T-161/98: Henri de Compte v European Parlia-                    ember 1999, the operative part of which is as follows:
                              ment (1)
                                                                        1. The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
(Officials — Annulment of a disciplinary measure — Action               2. The applicant shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by
manifestly inadmissible — Action manifestly unfounded in                     the Council.
                                law)
                                                                        3. The Diputación Provincial de Jaén, the Junta de Comunidades de
                                                                             Castilla-La Mancha, the Consejo de Gobierno de la Comunidad
                         (2000/C 79/57)                                      Autónoma de Andalucı́a and the Commission shall bear their
                                                                             own costs.
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        (1) OJ 1999 C 71.
In Case T-161/98: Henri de Compte, former official of the
European Parliament, residing in Longeville-lès-Metz (France),
represented by Henri Ferretti, of the Thionville Bar, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of André
Lutgen, 1 Rue J.-P. Brasseur, against European Parliament
(Agents: Manfred Peter, Yannis Pantalis and Denis Waelbroeck)                  ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
— application for annulment of the decision of the President
of the European Parliament of 18 January 1988 downgrading                                    of 8 December 1999
him from grade A 3, step 8, to grade A 7, step 6 — the Court
of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of V. Tiili,               in Case T-79/99, Euro-Lex European Law Expertise GmbH
President, R.M. Moura Ramos and P. Mengozzi, Judges;                    against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 8 December 1999, the                             Market (trade marks and designs) (1)
operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                        (Community trade mark — Representation by a lawyer who
1. The application is dismissed.                                                 is a manager of the applicant — Inadmissible)
2. The parties shall bear their own costs.                                                       (2000/C 79/59)
(1) OJ 1998 C 378.                                                                        (Language of the case: German)
                                                                        In Case T-79/99, Euro-Lex European Law Expertise GmbH,
                                                                        established in Emmerich (Germany), represented by Eckhard


title: Case C-471/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 15 October 2014  — Seattle Genetics Inc.

text:
               22.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/16

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 15 October 2014 — Seattle Genetics Inc.
   (Case C-471/14)
   (2014/C 462/26)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Wien

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Seattle Genetics Inc.

      Defendant authority: Österreichisches Patentamt

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the date of the first authorisation to place the product on the market in the Community pursuant to Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products determined according to Community law or does that provision refer to the date on which the authorisation takes effect under the law of the Member State in question?

               2.

               If the Court’s answer is that the date referred to in Question 1 is determined by Community law, which date must be taken into account — the date of authorisation or the date of notification?

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 152, p. 1.


title: Case C-37/13 P: Appeal brought on 24 January 2013 by Nexans France SAS, Nexans SA against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 14 November 2012 in Case T-135/09: Nexans France SAS, Nexans SA v European Commission

text:
               6.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 101/10

         Appeal brought on 24 January 2013 by Nexans France SAS, Nexans SA against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 14 November 2012 in Case T-135/09: Nexans France SAS, Nexans SA v European Commission
   (Case C-37/13 P)
   2013/C 101/22
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Nexans France SAS, Nexans SA (represented by: M. Powell, Solicitor, J.-P. Tran-Thiet, Avocat, G. Forwood, Barrister, A. Rogers, Advocate)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the Contested Judgment insofar as it dismissed the second branch of the applicant’s first plea that the geographical scope of the dawn raid decision was overly broad and insufficiently precise;

               —

               on the basis of the information at its disposal, annul the Dawn Raid Decision in so far as its geographic scope was overly broad, insufficiently justified and insufficiently precise, or alternatively, refer the case back to the General Court for determination in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice as to points of law;

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal insofar as it orders Nexans to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by the Commission in the proceedings before the General Court and order the Commission to pay Nexans’ costs for the proceedings before the General Court in an amount the Court sees fit,

               —

               order the Commission to pay all of Nexans’ costs in these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellants submit that the General Court erred in dismissing their application for the annulment of the Dawn Raid Decision insofar as it was insufficiently precise, overly broad in its geographic scope and applied to any suspected agreements and/or concerted practices that ‘probably had a global reach’. The appellants also submit that the General Court erred in its order as to costs.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 July 2004 in Joined Cases C-37/02 and C-38/02 (references for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Veneto): Di Lenardo Adriano Srl and Dilexport Srl v Ministero del Commercio con l'Estero (Bananas — Common organisation of the market — Regulation (EC) No 896/2001 — Common system of trade with third countries — Primary imports — Validity — Protection of legitimate expectations — Retroactivity — Implementing power)

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/3

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 15 July 2004
   in Joined Cases C-37/02 and C-38/02 (references for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Veneto): Di Lenardo Adriano Srl and Dilexport Srl v Ministero del Commercio con l'Estero (1)

   (Bananas - Common organisation of the market - Regulation (EC) No 896/2001 - Common system of trade with third countries - Primary imports - Validity - Protection of legitimate expectations - Retroactivity - Implementing power)
   (2004/C 228/06)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Joined Cases C-37/02 and C-38/02: references to the Court under Article 234 EC for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Veneto (Italy) in the proceedings pending before that court between Di Lenardo Adriano Srl (C-37/02), Dilexport Srl (C-38/02) and Ministero del Commercio con l'Estero on the validity of Articles 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 31 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 896/2001of 7 May 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 as regards the arrangements for importing bananas into the Community (OJ 2001 L 126, p. 6) — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), F. Macken and N. Colneric, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Admininistrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 July 2004, in which it has ruled:
   Consideration of the questions referred for a preliminary ruling have disclosed nothing to affect the validity of Articles 1, 3, 4, 5, 6(c) and 31 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 896/2001 of 7 May 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 as regards the arrangements for importing bananas into the Community.

      (1)  OJ C 97 of 20.4.2002.


title: Case C-626/13 P: Appeal brought on 29 November 2013 by Villeroy & Boch Austria GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 September 2013 in Joined Cases T-373/10, T-374/10, T-382/10 and T-402/10 Villeroy & Boch Austria GmbH and Others v European Commission

text:
               8.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/12

         Appeal brought on 29 November 2013 by Villeroy & Boch Austria GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 September 2013 in Joined Cases T-373/10, T-374/10, T-382/10 and T-402/10 Villeroy & Boch Austria GmbH and Others v European Commission
   (Case C-626/13 P)
   2014/C 39/18
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Villeroy & Boch Austria GmbH (represented by: A. Reidlinger and J. Weichbrodt, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside in its entirety the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 September 2013 in Joined Cases T-373/10, T-374/10, T-382/10 and T-402/10 in so far as it dismisses the action and concerns the applicant;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Article 1 of Decision C(2010) 4185 final of the defendant of 23 June 2010 in the form of the judgment under appeal in so far as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               in the alternative, reduce appropriately the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant under Article 2 of the contested decision of the defendant of 23 June 2010;

               —

               in the further alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for a fresh decision;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               The first ground of appeal complains that the findings of the General Court with regard to an alleged infringement in Austria are vitiated by errors of law. The General Court basis its judgment on findings and reasons which were not previously the object of the contested Commission decision or of objections. At the same time, the relevant assertions of the applicant are disregarded or inaccurately represented.

               2.

               The second ground of appeal contests the combination in law of factually and legally unrelated conduct into an allegedly single, complex and continuous infringement (‘SCCI’), which in the applicant’s view should not have legally taken place because of the lack of complementarity between the conduct that was assessed together. In the way it was used in this case, the concept of the SCCI infringes the principle of a right to a fair trial.

               3.

               The third ground of appeal complains of a legally deficient so-called ‘light review’ of the General Court, which did not adequately carry out its task of examination and thereby undermined the Community law guarantee of legal protection.

               4.

               Finally, the fourth ground of appeal complains that the confirmed fine is, in any case, disproportionate. As incriminating findings of fact were set aside in the judgment and will be set aside owing to legal errors in reasoning, an unchanged imposition of the statutory maximum penalty of 10 % of group turnover, which the General Court declared, cannot be proportionate and thus cannot be lawful. Where the findings of fact used to establish the infringement are to a large extent not valid, then, in view of glaring gaps in causality and evidence as well as the absence of attribution links, there cannot be any SCCI which covered six countries, three product groups and 10 years, but at most punctual, local infringements, which would far from justify the level of penalty imposed in this case. The facts under examination in this case are a long way from constituting a serious or by no means most serious case imaginable, a matter which the General Court — in gross disregard of the discretionary criteria which it had to interpret — did not consider.


title: Case C-1/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation (France) lodged on 2 January 2013 — Cartier Parfums Lunettes SAS and Axa Corporate Solutions Assurances SA v Ziegler France SA, Montgomery Transport SARL, Inko Trade SRO, Jaroslave Mateja, Groupama Transport

text:
               2.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation (France) lodged on 2 January 2013 — Cartier Parfums Lunettes SAS and Axa Corporate Solutions Assurances SA v Ziegler France SA, Montgomery Transport SARL, Inko Trade SRO, Jaroslave Mateja, Groupama Transport
   (Case C-1/13)
   2013/C 63/22
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de Cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Cartier Parfums Lunettes SAS and Axa Corporate Solutions Assurances SA

      Defendants: Ziegler France SA, Montgomery Transport SARL, Inko Trade SRO, Jaroslave Mateja, Groupama Transport

      Question referred

   Must Article 27(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1) be interpreted as meaning that the jurisdiction of the court first seised is established, if neither party has claimed that it lacks jurisdiction or if the court has accepted its jurisdiction by a decision which is irrevocable for any reason whatsoever, including the exhaustion of legal remedies?

      (1)  OJ 2001, L 12, p. 1.


20150731047617032015/C 270/513502015TC27020150817EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20150630414111Case T-350/15: Action brought on 30 June 2015 — Perry Ellis International Group v OHIM — CG (P)
 ---documentbreak--- C2702015EN4110120150630EN0051411411Action brought on 30 June 2015 — Perry Ellis International Group v OHIM — CG (P)
   (Case T-350/15)2015/C 270/51Language in which the application was lodged: English
      Parties

      Applicant: Perry Ellis International Group Holdings Limited (Nassau, Bahamas) (represented by: O. Günzel and V. Ahmann, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: CG verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH (Gevelsberg, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark in black and white containing the word element ‘P’ — Application for registration No 10 889 723

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 April 2015 in Case R 2441/2014-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

            —

            annul the contested decision;

            —

            award the costs of the proceedings against the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM.

      Plea in law

            —

            Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Joint Cases C-334/06 to C-336/06: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 June 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Chemnitz (Germany)) — Matthias Zerche (C-334/06) and Manfred Seuke (C-336/06) v Landkreis Mittweida and Steffen Schubert (C-335/06) v Landkreis Mittlerer Erzgebirgskreis (Directive 91/439/EEC — Mutual recognition of driving licences — Withdrawal of a licence in one Member State for use of narcotic drugs or alcohol — New licence issued in another Member State — Refusal to recognise right to drive in the first Member State — Residence not in accordance with Directive 91/439/EEC)

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/6

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 June 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Chemnitz (Germany)) — Matthias Zerche (C-334/06) and Manfred Seuke (C-336/06) v Landkreis Mittweida and Steffen Schubert (C-335/06) v Landkreis Mittlerer Erzgebirgskreis
   (Joint Cases C-334/06 to C-336/06) (1)

   (Directive 91/439/EEC - Mutual recognition of driving licences - Withdrawal of a licence in one Member State for use of narcotic drugs or alcohol - New licence issued in another Member State - Refusal to recognise right to drive in the first Member State - Residence not in accordance with Directive 91/439/EEC)
   (2008/C 209/08)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Verwaltungsgericht Chemnitz
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Matthias Zerche (C-334/06), Manfred Seuke (C-336/06), Steffen Schubert (C-335/06)

      Defendants: Landkreis Mittweida, Landkreis Mittlerer Erzgebirgskreis
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Chemnitz (Germany) — Interpretation of Arts. 1(2) and 8(2) and (4) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 1) — Refusal to recognise the validity of a driving licence issued by another Member State after the expiry of a ban imposed on the holder who has had his national licence withdrawn for drunk driving, and who has been unable to produce the medical/psychological report which is required in order to obtain a new licence in his State of residence — Abuse of law
   Operative part of the judgment
   On a proper construction of Articles 1(2), 7(1) and 8(2) and (4) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 September 2003, it is contrary to those provisions for a Member State, in circumstances such as those of the cases in the main proceedings, to refuse to recognise in its territory the right to drive stemming from a driving licence subsequently issued by another Member State beyond any period in which the person concerned is forbidden to apply for a new licence and, therefore, to recognise the validity of that licence, so long as the licence-holder has not satisfied the necessary conditions in that first Member State for the issue of a new licence following the withdrawal of a previous licence, including the examination of fitness to drive certifying that the grounds justifying the withdrawal are no longer in existence.
   In the same circumstances, it is not contrary to those provisions for a Member State to refuse to recognise in its territory the right to drive stemming from a driving licence subsequently issued by another Member State, if it is established, on the basis of entries appearing in the driving licence itself or of other incontestable information supplied by the Member State of issue, that when that licence was issued its holder, who had been the object, in the territory of the first Member State, of a measure withdrawing an earlier licence, was not normally resident in the territory of the Member State of issue.

      (1)  OJ C 261, 28.10.2006.


title: Case C-301/10: Action brought on 16 June 2010 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

text:
               11.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/21

         Action brought on 16 June 2010 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-301/10)
   ()
   2010/C 246/36
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán, Agent, A.-A. Gilly, Agent)

      Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to ensure that appropriate collecting systems pursuant to Articles 3(1) and (2) and Annex I(A) to Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment (1) are in place in Whitburn and the Beckton and Crossness collecting systems in London, and that appropriate treatment is provided with regard to waste waters from the Beckton, Crossness and Mogden waste water treatment plants in London pursuant to Articles 4(1), 4(3) and 10 of, and Annex I(B) to, the Directive, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to comply with its obligations under these provisions.

               —

               order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Pursuant to Articles 3(1) and (2) of, and Annex I(A) to, Council Directive 91/271/EEC, the United Kingdom is required to ensure that collecting systems are provided for all agglomerations of more than 15,000 population equivalent by 31 December 2000 at the latest and that those collecting systems satisfy the requirements of Annex I(A) to the Directive. Pursuant to Articles 4(1) and (3) of, and Annex I(B) to, that Directive, the United Kingdom is also required to ensure that urban waste water entering collecting systems are, before discharge, subject to secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment for all discharges from agglomerations of more than 15,000 population equivalent by 31 December 2000 at the latest and that discharges from urban waste water treatment plants satisfy the standards to be met for discharges from urban waste water treatment plants to receiving waters.
   As the United Kingdom operates a combined system of collection for both urban waste waters and rainwater run off in the London area, that system must be designed to ensure that the waters collected are retained and conducted for treatment in accordance with the requirements set out in the Directive. The United Kingdom has failed to ensure that the collecting systems are designed and built so as to collect all the urban waste water generated by the agglomerations they serve and that they are conducted for treatment. The capacity of the collecting system must be able to take into account natural climatic conditions and seasonal variations. The United Kingdom has infringed the requirements of the Directive in failing to provide adequate collecting systems and treatment facilities in the London and Whitburn areas and allowing excessive quantities of untreated waste water to spill into the environment without treatment.

      (1)  OJ L 135, p. 40


title: Action brought on 27 February 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic (Case C-62/98)

text:
16.5.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 151/5
adopt the measures necessary to transpose directives               (EEC) No 4055/86 and, in particular to Article 4(1). They
addressed to them into their domestic law before the               should therefore be adjusted in order to comply with the
expiry of the period prescribed for doing so. That period,         Regulation.
which is laid down in Article 4 of the Directive, expired
on 8 August 1995 without the Grand Duchy of                        (1) OJ L 378, 31.12.1986, p. 1.
Luxembourg having brought into force the necessary
provisions.
(1) OJ L 268, 19.10.1994, p. 15.
                                                                   Appeal brought on 3 March 1998 by Odette Nicos
                                                                   Petrides Co. Inc. against the judgment delivered on
                                                                   17 December 1997 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court
                                                                   of First Instance of the European Communities in Case
                                                                   T-152/95 between Odette Nicos Petrides Co. Inc. and the
Action brought on 27 February 1998 by the Commission                        Commission of the European Communities
of the European Communities against the Portuguese
                                                                                (Case C-64/98 P)
                           Republic
                       (Case C-62/98)                                                      (98/C 151/08)
                        (98/C 151/07)
                                                                   An appeal against the judgment delivered on 17 December
                                                                   1997 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First
                                                                   Instance of the European Communities in Case T-152/95
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
                                                                   between Odette Nicos Petrides Co. Inc. and the
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                   Commission of the European Communities was brought
on 27 February 1998 by the Commission of the European
                                                                   before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
Communities, represented by António Caeiro, Principal
                                                                   on 3 March 1998 by Odette Nicos Petrides Co. Inc.,
Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service
                                                                   represented by Nikolaos Vassilakakis and Evangelos
in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
                                                                   Vassilakakis, of the Thessalonica Bar, and Evangelia
of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                   Pallioudi, of the Kavala Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                   Luxembourg at the Chambers of Carlos Zeyen, 56Ð58
                                                                   Rue Charles Martel.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                   The appellant claims that the Court should:
1. declare that, by failing to denounce or adjust the
     agreements with Senegal, Cape Verde, Angola and Sao
                                                                   Ð grant the application for review and quash the
     Tome and Principe, so as to provide for fair, free and
                                                                       judgment (1),
     non-discriminatory access by all Community nationals
     to the cargo-shares due to Portugal, as provided for in
     Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 of 22 December            Ð grant all the claims for damages in the action (2),
     1986 applying the principle of freedom to provide
     services to maritime transport between Member States
     and between Member States and third countries (1),            Ð order the Commission to pay the costs of the
     the Portuguese Republic failed to fulfil its obligations          proceedings before both the Court of First Instance
     under Articles 3 and 4(1) thereof and the EC Treaty,              and the Court of Justice.
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
2. order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                   Ð Insufficient reasoning in the contested judgment on
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    questions which have a substantial bearing on the
                                                                       principle of proportionality,
The agreements between Portugal and the States referred            Ð manifestly incorrect application of the principle of
to in the application reserve the transport of cargo                   proportionality to the actual events in the second
between the parties to vessels flying the flag of one of the           tendering procedure,
parties or to vessels operated by persons or undertakings
having the nationality of one of the parties. Thus, vessels
operated by nationals of others are excluded from the              Ð distortion and misinterpretation of documentary
trade covered by the agreements. The Commission                        evidence by the Court of First Instance in that it
considers them to be cargo-sharing arrangements which                  manifestly gave those documents a different meaning
are subject to the provisions and obligations of Regulation            from their actual one when considering the principle


title: Case C-132/09: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 30 September 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Jurisdiction of the Court — Statute of the European Schools — Establishment Agreement of 1962 — Conventions of 1957 and 1994 — Arbitration clause — Article 10 EC — Financing of the European Schools — Costs of furniture and teaching equipment)

text:
               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/8

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 30 September 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-132/09) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Jurisdiction of the Court - Statute of the European Schools - Establishment Agreement of 1962 - Conventions of 1957 and 1994 - Arbitration clause - Article 10 EC - Financing of the European Schools - Costs of furniture and teaching equipment)
   2010/C 317/15
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne and B. Eggers, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: J.-C. Halleux, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to have regard to the third paragraph of Article 1 of the Agreement signed on 12 October 1962 between the Board of Governors of the European Schools and the Kingdom of Belgium (‘the Establishment Agreement’) and of Article 10 EC — Refusal by the Belgian authorities to pay the expenses for teaching equipment and materials for the European Schools — Justified on the basis of the internal legal order — Absence of a succession of established acts or declarations of the parties, within the meaning of Article 31(3)(a) and (b) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, calling into question the Establishment Agreement

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that the Court of Justice of the European Union does not have jurisdiction to rule on the action of the European Commission, brought on the basis of Article 226 EC, on the ground that the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Establishment Agreement concluded on 12 October 1962 between the Board of Governors of the European School and the Government of the Kingdom of Belgium, read in conjunction with Article 10 EC;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 153, 04.07.2009.


title: Case T-162/14: Action brought on 28 February 2014 — Canadian Solar Emea and Others v Council

text:
               5.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 135/58

         Action brought on 28 February 2014 — Canadian Solar Emea and Others v Council
   (Case T-162/14)
   2014/C 135/77
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Canadian Solar Emea GmbH (Munich, Germany); Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu), Inc. (Changshu, China); Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang), Inc. (Luoyang, China); Csi Cells Co. Ltd (Suzhou, China); and Csi Solar Power (China), Inc. (Suzhou) (represented by: A. Willems, S. De Knop and J. Charles, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Declare the action admissible;

               —

               Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1238/2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2013 L 325, p. 1), as far as it applies to the applicants;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that by imposing anti-dumping measures on crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components consigned from the People’s Republic of China whereas the Notice of initiation mentioned only crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components originating in the People’s Republic of China, the Institutions violated Articles 5(10) and 5(11) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (1).

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that by imposing anti-dumping measures on crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components that were not subject to an anti-dumping investigation, the Institutions violated Articles 1 and 17 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that by applying a non-market economy methodology for calculating the dumping margin of products from market economy countries, the Institutions violated Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that by conducting one single investigation for two distinct products (i.e., crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and cells), the Institutions violated Article 1(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that by failing to examine the applicants’ market economy treatment requests, the Institutions violated Article 2(7)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009;

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that by failing to separately quantify the injury suffered by the Union industry caused by both the dumped imports and other known factors and, as a consequence, by imposing a duty rate in excess of what is necessary to remove the injury caused by the dumped imports to the Union industry, the Institutions violated Articles 3 and 9(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51)


20150731057617082015/C 270/362102015TC27020150817EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20150424283032Case T-210/15: Action brought on 24 April 2015 — Deutsche Telekom v Commission
 ---documentbreak--- C2702015EN2820120150424EN0036282303Action brought on 24 April 2015 — Deutsche Telekom v Commission
   (Case T-210/15)2015/C 270/36Language of the case: German
      Parties

      Applicant: Deutsche Telekom AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: A. Rosenfeld and O. Corzilius, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

            —

            annul the decision of the European Commission of 17 February 2015 on the applicant’s application for access to documents in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — GESTDEM 2014/4555;

            —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The access to documents requested concerns abuse proceedings under Article 102 TFEU.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law.

            1.

            First plea in law: Infringement of the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (
                  1
               ) and the duty to state reasons

                     —

                     The applicant submits in that regard that the Commission erred in not examining the specific exception for the protection of decision-making processes and the restrictive conditions thereof although that provision expressly governs the present case of a requested disclosure of documents after conclusion of the proceedings. In addition, the Commission has not justified that action.

            2.

            Second plea in law: Infringement of the first and third indents of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 in the absence of intervention of the exceptions

                     —

                     The applicant submits that, by relying on a general presumption, the Commission erred in affirming the applicability of the exceptions for the protection of commercial interests of third parties and the purpose of investigations to documents of concluded proceedings. The Commission hereby infringed the obligation to carry out a concrete and individual examination of the documents concerning the application for access. In addition, the Commission did not prove any specific impairment of the protected interests.

            3.

            Third plea in law: Infringement of the last subparagraph of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 owing to the existence of an overriding public interest in the disclosure of information

                     —

                     Within the context of this plea, the applicant asserts that there is an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the documents requested. That overriding public interest concerns the promotion of good administrative practice, the execution of compliance measures, the examination of possible claims for damages and the judicial review of administrative actions. The applicant takes the view that, without the access to documents, there is no possibility for it to review the Commission’s administrative action concerning it.

            4.

            Fourth plea in law: Infringement of Article 4(4) of Regulation No 1049/2001 in the absence of consultation of third parties

                     —

                     The applicant submits in that regard that the Commission erred in law in not consulting third parties on the release of the documents concerning it.

            5.

            Fifth plea in law: Infringement of Article 4(6) of Regulation No 1049/2001 in the absence of a grant of partial access to documents

                     —

                     According to this plea in law, the Commission erred in refusing partial access to documents.

            6.

            Sixth plea in law: Infringement of primary law due to breach of the fundamental right of access to documents under Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the obligation of transparency under Article 15(3) TFEU

                     —

                     The applicant submits that the right of access to the documents requested (in the alternative) must be derived directly from primary law and must be granted. The complete denial of access constitutes a disproportionate interference with the fundamental right of access to documents under Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The interpretation of Regulation No 1049/2001 must be made in the light of the importance of that fundamental right and the obligation of transparency laid down in Article 15(3) TFEU.

            7.

            Seventh plea in law: Infringement of Article 8 of Regulation No 1049/2001 in the absence of observance of the time-limit regime

                     —

                     Within the context of this plea, the applicant asserts that, by not handling the confirmatory application within the time-limits specified and by repeatedly extending the time-limits for no reason, the Commission infringed the mandatory time-limit regime.

      (
         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-56/13: Order of the General Court of 8 July 2013 — ClientEarth and Stichting BirdLife Europe v European Commission (Access to documents of the institutions — Document held by the Commission concerning European Union energy policy — Implied refusal of access — Express decision adopted after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               12.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 298/6

         Order of the General Court of 8 July 2013 — ClientEarth and Stichting BirdLife Europe v European Commission
   (Case T-56/13) (1)

   (Access to documents of the institutions - Document held by the Commission concerning European Union energy policy - Implied refusal of access - Express decision adopted after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate)
   2013/C 298/10
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom); and Stichting BirdLife Europe (Zeist, Netherlands) (represented by: O. Brouwer, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment of the Commission’s implied decision to refuse the applicants access to a document concerning European Union energy policy.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by ClientEarth and Stitching BirdLife Europe.

      (1)  OJ C 101, 6.4.2013.


title: Action brought on 16 March 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain (Case C-79/95)

text:
24 . 6 . 95             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 159/5
                  ORDER OF THE COURT                                        of the European Communities, represented by Blanca
                          of 7 April 1995                                   Rodriguez Galindo, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent,
                                                                            with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
in Case C- 1 6 7/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from               Georgios Kremlis, of the Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
the Juzgado de Instrucciôn de Sueca, Valencia ( Spain )):                   Kirchberg.
criminal proceedings against Juan Carlos Grau Gomis and
                               Others (*)
(Reference for a preliminaryruling — Lack ofjurisdiction —                  The applicant claims that the Court should :
                           Inadmissiblity)
                            ( 95/C 159/09 )
                                                                            1 . declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
                                                                                administrative provisions needed to give effect to:
                (Language of the case: Spanisb)
                                                                                — Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                        introduction        of   measures     to     encourage
          published in the European Court Reports)                                  improvements in the safety and health of workers at
                                                                                work (*),
In Case C-167/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EEC Treaty from the Juzgado de Instrucciôn ( Local                       — Directive     89/654/EEC      of 30    November      1989
Criminal Court), Sueca, Valencia ( Spain ) for a preliminary                        concerning the minimum safety and health
ruling in the criminal proceedings pending before that court                        requirements for the workplace ( first individual
against Juan Carlos Grau Gomis and Others — on the                                  Directive within the meaning of Article 16 ( 1 ) of
interpretation of Articles 2, 3 ( a ), ( b ), ( f) and ( h ), 3a ( 1 ), 8b,         Directive 89/391 /EEC ) (2 ),
9 , 35 , 37 ( 1 ), 86 and 90 of the EC Treaty, on the
interpretation of Articles 2 , 9 , 35 and 51 of the Act
concerning the Conditions of Accession of the Kingdom of                        — Directive     89/655/EEC      of 30    November      1989
Spain and the Republic of Portugal and the Adjustments of                           concerning the minimum safety and health
the Treaties of 12 June 1985 ( 2 ) and on the interpretation of                     requirements for the use of work equipment by
Article B of the Treaty on European Union — the Court,                              workers at work ( second individual Directive within
composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, F. A.                              the meaning of Article 16 ( 1 ) of Directive
Schockweiler, P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann and P. Jann                              89/391 /EEC ) ( 2 ),
( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, C. N. Kakouris,
J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward,
J. -P. Puissochet ( Rapporteur ), G. Hirsch and H.                              — Directive 89/656/EEC of 30 November 1989 on the
Ragnemalm, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate-General; R.                                  minimum safety and health requirements for the use
Grass, Registrar, made an order on 7 April 1995 , the                               by workers of personal protective equipment at the
operative part of which is as follows :                                             workplace ( third individual Directive within the
                                                                                meaning of Article 16 ( 1 ) of Directive
                                                                                89/391 /EEC ) (2 ),
The Court has no jurisdiction to reply to a question on
Article B of the Treaty on European Union asked by the
Juzgado de Instrucciôn de Sueca, Valencia (Spain), in a                         — Directive 90/269/EEC of 29 May 1990 on the
request for a preliminary ruling made by order of 18 May                            minimum safety and health requirements for the
1 994. As to the remainder, the request from the Juzgado de                         manual handling of loads when there is a risk
Instrucciôn is inadmissible.                                                        particularly of back injury to workers ( fourth
                                                                                individual Directive within the meaning of
                                                                                Article 16 ( 1 ) of Directive 89/391 /EEC ) ( 3 ),
(') OJ No C 218 , 6 . 8 . 1994 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 302 , 15 . 11 . 1985 , p . 23 .
                                                                                — Directive 90/270/EEC of 29 May 1990 on the
                                                                                minimum safety and health requirements for work
                                                                                with display screen equipment ( fifth individual
                                                                                Directive within the meaning of Article 16 ( 1 ) of
                                                                                Directive 89/391 /EEC ) ( 3 ),
Action brought on 16 March 1995 by the Commission of
                                                                                — Directive 90/394/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the
the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                                protection of workers from the risks related to
                                 Spain
                                                                                exposure to carcinogens at work ( sixth individual
                          ( Case C-79/95 )                                          Directive within the meaning of Article 16 ( 1 ) ' of
                            ( 95/C 159/10 )                                         Directive 89/391 /EEC ) (4 ),
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                       the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations
the Court of Justice on 16 March 1 995 by the Commission                        under those Directives;
 ---pagebreak--- No C 159/6                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                 24 . 6 . 95
2 , order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs .                                    health problems affecting intra-Community trade
                                                                                in meat products and amending Directive
                                                                                64/43 3/EEC (4), and
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                — Council Directive 92/40/EEC of 19 May 1992
In view of the binding nature of the third paragraph of                              introducing Community measures for the control of
Article 189 and the first paragraph of Article 5 of the EC                           avian influenza ( 5 ),
Treaty, the Member States are required to adopt the
measures necessary to give effect to the Directives addressed
to them before the end of the period appointed for that                          the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its
purpose. That period ended on 31 December 1992 without                           obligations under the EC Treaty and under the above
the requisite provisions having been adopted by Spain.                           Directives ;
(0    OJ No  L 183 , 29 . 6 . 1989 , p . 1 .                                 2 , order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
                                                                                costs .
(2 )  OJ No  L 393 , 30.   11 . 1989, pp . 1 , 13 , and 18 .
(-5 ) OJ No  L 156 , 21 . 6 . 1990 , pp . 9 and 14 .
(4 )  OJ No  L 196 , 26 . 7 . 1990 , p . 1 .
                                                                             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                             The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case
                                                                             C-79/95 ; the time limit for implementation expired on
                                                                             1 January 1993 .
Action brought on 17 March 1995 by the Commission of                         f1) OJ No   L 46 , 19 . 2 . 1991 , p . 1 .
the European Communities against the Federal Republic of                     (2) OJ No   L 268 , 24 . 9 . 1991 , p . 41
                                 Germany                                     (3) OJ No   L 268 , 24 . 9 . 1991 , p . 69
                                                                             (4) OJ No   L 57, 2 . 3 . 1992 , p . 1 .
                            ( Case C-86/95 )
                                                                             (5) OJ No   L 167, 22 . 6 . 1992, p . 1 .
                              ( 95/C 159/11 )
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 17 March 1995 by the Commission of the
European Communities, represented by Klaus-Dieter
Borchardt, a member of the Commission's Legal Service,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of                   Action brought on 27 March 1995 by the Commission of
Georgios Kremlis, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                  the European Communities against the Portuguese
                                                                                Republic
                                                                                ( Case C-93/95 )
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                                ( 95/C 159/12 )
1 , declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
      time limits the measures necessary to comply with:                     An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
                                                                             before the Court of Justice on 27 March 1995 by the
      — Council Directive 91 /67/EEC of 28 January 1991                      Commission of the European Communities, represented by
         concerning the animal health conditions governing                   Antonio Caeiro, Legal Advisor, acting as Agent, with an
          the placing on the market of aquaculture animals                   address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Georgios
          and products ( ! ),                                                Kremlis , of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
      — Council Directive 91 /495/EEC of 27 November
          1990 concerning public health and animal problems                  The applicant claims that the Court should :
          affecting the production and placing on the market
          of rabbit meat and farmed game meat (2 ),                          — declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
                                                                                period the measures necessary to implement in full
      — Council Directive 91 /497/EEC of 29 July 1991                            Council Directive 90/605/EEC of 8 November 1990
          amending and consolidating Directive 64/433/EEC                        amending Directive 78/660/EEC on annual accounts
          on health problems affecting intra-Community trade                     and Directive 83/349/EEC on consolidated accounts as
          in fresh meat to extend it to the production and                       regards the scope of those Directives, the Portuguese
          marketing of fresh meat ( 3 ),                                         Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
                                                                                Treaty,
      — Council Directive 92/5/EEC of 10 February 1992
          amending and updating Directive 77/99/EEC on                       — order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs .


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 12 July 2002 in Case T-302/00: Anthony Goldstein v Commission of the European Communities (Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Competition — Rejection of complaint — Action manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded)

text:
C 289/24                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        23.11.2002
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                           of 12 July 2002                                                       of 10 September 2002
                                                                           in Case T-223/01: Japan Tobacco Inc. and JT International
in Case T-302/00: Anthony Goldstein v Commission of                        SA v European Parliament and Council of the European
                  the European Communities (1)                                                           Union ( 1)
(Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements                  (Action for annulment — Article 7 of Directive 2001/37/EC
— Competition — Rejection of complaint — Action mani-                            — Admissibility — Locus standi — Direct concern)
          festly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded)
                                                                                (2002/C 289/47)
                          (2002/C 289/46)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           In Case T-223/01, Japan Tobacco Inc., established in Tokyo
                                                                           (Japan), and JT International SA, established in Geneva (Switz-
In Case T-302/00, Anthony Goldstein, residing at Harrow,                   erland), represented by O. Brouwer, lawyer, and P. Lomas,
Middlesex (United Kingdom), represented by R. St. John                     Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
Murphy, Solicitor, against Commission of the European Com-                 v European Parliament (Agents: C. Pennera and M. Moore),
munities (Agent: P. Oliver) — application for annulment of                 and Council of the European Union (Agent: E. Karlsson):
the Commission’s decision of 7 July 2000 rejecting the                     Application for annulment of Article 7 of Directive No 2001/
applicant’s complaint concerning alleged infringement of                   37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June
Articles 81 EC and 82 EC by the General Medical Council,                   2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and
training bodies and insurance companies — the Court of First               administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the
Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: M. Vilaras, President,             manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products (OJ
V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; Registrar: H. Jung, has made             2001 L 194 p. 26), the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber),
an order on 12 July 2002 in which it:                                      composed of: J.D. Cooke, President, R. García-Valdecasas and
                                                                           P. Lindh, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on
                                                                           10 September 2002, the operative part of which is as follows:
1.    Dismisses the application;
                                                                           1.    The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
2.    Orders the applicant to bear his own costs incurred both in
      these proceedings and in the proceedings for interim relief in
                                                                           2.    The applicants are ordered to pay the costs.
      Cases T-302/00 R and T-302/00 R II, and pay the costs
      incurred by the Commission in these proceedings and in the
      proceedings for interim relief in Case T-302/00 R.
                                                                           3.    There is no need to rule upon the applications to intervene.
( 1) OJ C 355 of 9 December 2000.
                                                                           (1 ) OJ C 3 of 5.1.2002.


title: Case C-310/12: Action brought on 27 June 2012 — European Commission v Hungary

text:
               24.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 366/22

         Action brought on 27 June 2012 — European Commission v Hungary
   (Case C-310/12)
   2012/C 366/38
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Hetsch, D. Düsterhaus and A. Sipos, acting as Agent(s))

      Defendant(s): Hungary

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives (1) since it has not adopted the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to bring its national law into line with the Directive, or, in any event, has not communicated such provisions to the Commission, pursuant to Article 40 of the Directive.

               —

               Order Hungary to pay a penalty payment pursuant to Article 260(3) TFEU of EUR 27 316,80 per day from the date of judgment, as it has not notified the Commission of the national measures adopted to implement Directive 2008/98/EC.

               —

               Order Hungary to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives is the principal legal instrument in this sector and establishes, inter alia, the essential concepts of waste management, such as what is to be understood by the terms waste, recycling and recovery.
   The period prescribed for the implementation of the Directive expired on 12 December 2010. Hungary informed the Commission that the legislative work on the implementation of the Directive was not finished. As provisions implementing the Directive have not been adopted to date, the Commission takes the view that Hungary has not fulfilled its obligations as regards the full implementation of the Directive.
   Pursuant to Article 260(3) TFEU, in actions for failure to fulfil obligations pursuant to Article 258, the Commission may ask the Court of Justice to order, in its judgment declaring that the Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations, the Member State concerned to notify the Commission of the measures transposing a directive adopted under a legislative procedure, or it may specify the amount of the lump sum or penalty payment to be paid by the Member State concerned which it considers appropriate in the circumstances. In compliance with the Communication from the Commission on implementation of Article 260(3) of the TFEU, (2) the Commission calculated the proposed penalty payment according to the method for the implementation of Article 228 EC provided for in the Communication.

      (1)  OJ 2008 L 312, p. 3.

      (2)  OJ 2011 C 12, p. 1.