title: Case T-366/13: Action brought on 12 July 2013 — France v Commission

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/42

         Action brought on 12 July 2013 — France v Commission
   (Case T-366/13)
   2013/C 252/70
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, G. de Bergues, D. Colas and N. Rouam, Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul in its entirety Decision C(2013) 1926 final of the European Commission of 2 May 2013 on State aid No SA.22843 2012 implemented by France in favour of the Société Nationale Corse Méditerranée and the Compagnie Méridionale de Navigation;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its application, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2013) 1926 final of 2 May 2013, by which the Commission, first, classified as State aid the financial compensation paid to the Société Nationale Corse Méditerranée (SNCM) and the Compagnie Méridionale de Navigation (CNM) in respect of maritime transport services provided between Marseilles and Corsica under a public service agreement during the period 2007-2013. Next, the Commission declared compatible with the internal market the compensation paid to SNCM and CNM for transport services provided throughout the year (‘the basic service’) but declared incompatible with the internal market the compensation paid in respect of the services provided during peak periods, namely Christmas, February, Spring-Autumn and/or Summer (‘the additional services’). Lastly, the Commission ordered the recovery of the aid declared incompatible with the internal market (State aid Case SA.22843 2012/C(ex 2012/NN).
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, divided into two parts, alleging that the concept of State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU was misapplied, the Commission having classified the compensation paid to SNCM and CNM as State aid, on the basis the the first and fourth conditions laid down by the Court of Justice in Case C-280/00 Altmark Trans and Regierungspräsidium Magdeberg [2003] ECR I-7747 were not fully satisfied.

                           —

                           The applicant submits by the first part of the first plea that the contested decision misapplies the concept of State aid in so far as the Commission took the view that the first condition laid down in Altmark was not fully satisfied. The applicant maintains in that regard:

                           —

                           first, that by making a distinction between the basic service and the additional service, the Commission committed an error of fact and of law and failed to have due regard to the broad discretion enjoyed by Member States in determining which services of general economic interest they wish to preserve;

                           —

                           second, that, taken together, the services covered by the public service agreement concluded between SNCM and CNM on the one hand, and the Office de Transports de la Corse and the Collectivité territoriale de Corse (Corsica local authorities) on the other, constitute services of general economic interest and that agreement satisfies the first condition laid down in Altmark;

                           —

                           third, that even if a distinction must be made between the basic service and the additional service, the additional service constitutes, in the same way as the basic service, a service of general economic interest and satisfies the first condition laid down in Altmark, since there is a genuine need for public services arising from the inadequacy of the regular transport services operating under conditions of free competition.

                           —

                           By the second part of the first plea, the applicant submits that the contested decision misinterprets the concept of State aid in that the Commission took the view that the fourth condition laid down in Altmark was not satisfied. The applicant contends that the procedure for the award of the public service contract made it possible to ensure conditions of effective competition and, therefore, the selection of the most economically advantageous tender for the local authorities.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, infringement of Article 106(2) TFEU, the Commission having taken the view that the financial compensation paid to SNCM in respect of the additional service constituted State aid incompatible with the internal market, on the basis that that service was not a service of general economic interest.


title: Case T-135/07: Action brought on 19 April 2007 — Italy v Commission

text:
               23.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 140/38

         Action brought on 19 April 2007 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-135/07)
   (2007/C 140/63)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Aiello, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul, as provided for in Article 230 of the EC Treaty, the decision in the letter of 7 February 2007, prot. No. 3585, of the Director General of the Directorate-General for Agriculture of the Commission;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Government of the Italian Republic has brought an action before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities to obtain the annulment, as provided for in Article 230 of the EC Treaty, of the decision in the letter of 7 February 2007, prot. 3585, of the Director General of the Directorate-General for Agriculture of the Commission, by which the request of the Italian authorities to adopt exceptional measures to support the Italian market in poultrymeat within the meaning of Article 14 of Regulation (EEC) No 2777/75 of the Council of 29 October 1975 on the common organisation of the market in poultrymeat (1) is rejected, so far as concerns the chicks destroyed in areas affected by avian influenza and subject to veterinary measures restricting circulation in the period from December 1999 to September 2003 inclusive.
   In support of its action, the Italian Government pleads:

               —

               infringement of the principle of non-discrimination between Community producers laid down in the second paragraph of Article 34(2) EC, in so far as the defendant granted exceptional market support measures only with regard to the egg-laying sector, refusing similar measures relating to poultrymeat by the contested measure;

               —

               misuse of powers and manifest error of assessment on the part of the Commission;
               It is noted in that respect that, for the purpose of attaining the objective pursued by Regulation No 2777/75, the Commission ought to have adopted exceptional measures to support the Italian market in poultrymeat, by far the most affected avicultural sector in Italy. By contrast, despite the repeated request put forward by the applicant, the Commission refused to do so, merely granting support measures in favour of the egg-laying sector, the least affected in Italy by restrictive measures and, essentially, the only one affected in the Netherlands. In so doing, the Commission clearly intended to allocate the majority of the available resources to Netherlands producers, reducing to a minimum the indemnity granted to Italian producers;

               —

               misinterpretation and infringement of Article 14 of Regulation No 2777/75 and manifest error of assessment.
               In the applicant's view, contrary to the view of the defendant, Article 14 of the regulation at issue does not apply only when the imbalances on the market are caused by the fact that it is impossible for producers which are in an area under surveillance and protection to have access to the market outside that area. In fact, the Commission could adopt exceptional support measures to restabilise the market affected by restrictions on free circulation which result from the application of measures intended to prevent the spread of animal disease, irrespective of whether those restrictions relate to products entering or those exiting a particular area;

               —

               lastly, also the breach of the principles of sound administration, impartiality, fairness and transparency.

      (1)  OJ L 282 of 1.11.1975, p. 77.


title: Case C-459/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour de cassation du Grand-duché de Luxembourg by judgment of that Court of 14 November 2002 in the case of 1. Willy Gerekens and 2. Association agricole PROCOLA against State of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
C 44/14               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                         22.2.2003
1.  Can a citizen of the Union in the factual circumstances                    Must the host country comply with any other rules in
    described in this order                                                    order to avoid rendering meaningless the right of resi-
                                                                               dence, such as a duty to assess the situation in the light
                                                                               of the fact that the application for the minimex or for
    —     who has temporary leave to remain,                                   social assistance is temporary, or taking into account the
                                                                               principle of proportionality (would the burden on the
                                                                               State in question be unreasonable)?
    —     does not have sufficient resources,
                                                                        (1 ) Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968
    —     carries out work for the hostel where he lives to the
                                                                             on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ
          extent of some 30 hours a week in the context of a                 L 257 of 19.10.1968, p. 2).
          personal reinsertion scheme, and                              (2 ) Council Directive 90/364/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the right of
                                                                             residence (OJ L 180 of 13.7.1990, p. 26).
    —     receives in return benefits in kind which cover his
          living expenses at the hostel itself
    claim a right of residence:
    —     as a worker within the meaning of Article 39 EC or            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour de
          Article 7(1) of Regulation No 1612/68 ( 1),                   cassation du Grand-duché de Luxembourg by judgment
                                                                        of that Court of 14 November 2002 in the case of 1. Willy
                                                                        Gerekens and 2. Association agricole PROCOLA against
    —     or as a worker pursuing an activity as a self-
                                                                                State of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
          employed person within the meaning of Article 43
          EC,
                                                                                (Case C-459/02)
    —     or as a person providing a service, in view of the
          tasks he performs at the hostel, or as a person for                                      (2003/C 44/27)
          whom the services are intended, in view of the
          benefits in kind granted to him by that hostel, within
          the meaning of Article 49 EC,
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by judgment of the Cour de cassation
    —     or merely because he participates in a scheme with
          a view to his social rehabilitation and access to             du Grand-duché de Luxembourg (Court of Cassation of the
                                                                        Grand Duchy of Luxembourg) of 14 November 2002, received
          employment?
                                                                        at the Court Registry on 19 December 2002, for a preliminary
                                                                        ruling in the case of 1. Willy Gerekens and 2. Association
2.  Should the answer be in the negative, can he rely directly          agricole PROCOLA against State of the Grand Duchy of
    on Article 18 EC which guarantees the right to freedom              Luxembourg on the following question:
    of movement and to reside in the territory of another
    Member State of the Union, merely in his capacity as a
    European citizen?                                                   Do the general principles of Community law of legal certainty
                                                                        and non-retroactivity mean that, for the application of Com-
    What then becomes of the requirements laid down                     munity legislation establishing production quotas of the type
    by Directive 90/364/EEC ( 2) and/or the ‘limitations and            introduced by Council Regulation (EEC) No 856/84 of
    conditions’ laid down in the EC Treaty, and in particular           31 March 1984 amending Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 on the
    the minimum resources requirement which, if it were                 common organisation of the market in milk and milk products
    applied on entry to the host country, would deprive him             (OJ 1984 L 90, p. 10) and Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/
    of the substantive right of residence itself?                       84 of 31 March 1984 adopting down general rules for the
                                                                        application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation
                                                                        (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector (OJ
    If, conversely, the right of residence arises automatically         1984 L 90, p. 13), a Member State is precluded from adopting,
    on the basis of citizenship of the Union, could the host            in place of initial rules held by the Court of Justice of the
    State subsequently refuse an application for the minimex            European Communities to be discriminatory, new rules which
    or for social assistance (that is to say, non-contributory          make it possible to penalise retroactively production in excess
    benefits), curtailing his right of residence on the ground          of production quotas introduced after the entry into force of
    that he does not have sufficient resources, when it grants          the Community regulations but under the aegis of the national
    those benefits to nationals of the host country provided            rules which have been replaced?
    they comply with requirements to which Belgian
    nationals are also subject (proof of their availability for
    work, proof that they are in need)?


title: Case T-448/08: Action brought on 29 September 2008 — FIFA v OHIM — Ferrero (WORLD CUP 2006 GERMANY)

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/52

         Action brought on 29 September 2008 — FIFA v OHIM — Ferrero (WORLD CUP 2006 GERMANY)
   (Case T-448/08)
   (2008/C 313/92)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) (Zurich, Switzerland) (represented by: D. Alexander QC, A. Barav, Barrister, R. Buchel and C. Rassmann, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ferrero OHG mbH (Stadtallendorf, Germany)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul, in whole or in part, the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 June 2008 in case R 1470/2005-1; and

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The word mark ‘WORLD CUP 2006 GERMANY’ for goods and services in classes 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 25, 28, 29, 30, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41 and 42 — Community trade mark registration No 2 047 843

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of the Cancellation Division

      Pleas in law: (i) Infringement of Article 73 and 74(1) of Council Regulation No 40/94 in so far as the Board of Appeal has based, largely, its decision on Article 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation No 40/94, a provision which was neither invoked by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, nor relied upon by the Cancellation Division; (ii) Alternatively, infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal failed to consider the registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity as a whole, through the eyes of the average consumer and to apply the relevant law relating to the assessment of descriptiveness of the goods and/or services applied for; and (iii) Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal erred in its finding that the registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity was devoid of the necessary distinctive character.


title: Case C-502/99: Action brought on 22 December 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
C 79/10                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     18.3.2000
4. The contested judgment is also vitiated by a breach of             Action brought on 22 December 1999 by the Commission
    Community law by the Court of First Instance inasmuch             of the European Communities against the French Republic
    as it misapplied the principle of proportionality, misasses-
    sed the Commission’s power of discretionary power and
                                                                                (Case C-502/99)
    broke with precedent.
                                                                                (2000/C 79/19)
                                                                      An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                      Court of Justice on 22 December 1999 by the Commission of
                                                                      the European Communities, represented by Christopher Van
                                                                      der Hauwaert, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an
                                                                      address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                                                                      Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
Action brought on 22 December 1999 by the Commission                  Kirchberg.
of the European Communities against the French Republic
                                                                      The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                      the Court should:
                         (Case C-501/99)
                                                                      — declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
                                                                           time-limit the laws, regulations and administrative pro-
                          (2000/C 79/18)                                   visions necessary to comply with Council Directive
                                                                           97/61/EC of 20 October 1997 amending the Annex to
                                                                           Directive 91/492/EEC laying down the health conditions
An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                           for the production and placing on the market of live
Court of Justice on 22 December 1999 by the Commission of
                                                                           bivalve molluscs (1), the French Republic has failed to
the European Communities, represented by Christopher Van
                                                                           comply with its obligations under the Treaty;
der Hauwaert, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,               — order the French Republic to pay the costs.
Kirchberg.
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                      The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
— declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed             in Case C-495/99 (2); the period prescribed by Article 2 of
    time-limit the laws, regulations and administrative pro-          Directive 97/61/EC expired on 1 July 1998.
    visions necessary to comply with Council Directive
    95/69/EC laying down the conditions and arrangements
    for approving and registering certain establishments and          (1) OJ L 295 of 29.10.1997, p. 35.
    intermediaries operating in the animal feed sector and            (2) OJ C 63, 4.3.2000, p. 16.
    amending Directives 70/524/EEC, 74/63/EEC, 79/373/EEC
    and 82/471/EEC’(1), the French Republic has failed to
    comply with its obligations under the Treaty;
— order the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                      Action brought on 22 December 1999 by the Commission
Pleas in law and main arguments                                       of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                                Belgium
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those                                     (Case C-503/99)
in Case C-495/99 (2); the period prescribed by Article 21 of
Directive 95/69/EC expired on 1 April 1998.
                                                                                (2000/C 79/20)
(1) OJ L 332 of 30.12.1995, p. 15.                                    An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before
(2) OJ C 63, 4.3.2000, p. 16.                                         the Court of Justice on 22 December 1999 by the Commission
                                                                      of the European Communities, represented by Maria Patakia,
                                                                      of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service
                                                                      in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
                                                                      Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.


Avis juridique important

|

52003XX1024(01)

Court of Justice - The new members of the Court take the oath

Official Journal C 255 , 24/10/2003 P. 0005 - 0005

The new members of the Court take the oath(2003/C 255/07)Mr Lenaerts and Ms Silva de Lapuerta, appointed Judges at the Court of Justice of the European Communities by decision of the Governments of the Member States of the European Communities of 23 July 2003(1), for the period from 7 October 2003 to 6 October 2009, took the oath before the Court on 6 October 2003.Ms Kokott and Mr Poiares Pessoa Maduro, appointed Advocates General of the Court of Justice of the European Communities by decision of the Governments of the Member States of the European Communities of 23 July 2003(2), for the period from 7 October 2003 to 6 October 2009, took the oath before the Court on 6 October 2003.(1) OJ L 203, 12.8.2003, p. 45.(2) OJ L 203, 12.8.2003, p. 45.


title: Case C-294/13 P: Appeal brought on 27 May 2013 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 14 March 2013 in Case T-587/08: Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc. v European Commission

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/19

         Appeal brought on 27 May 2013 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 14 March 2013 in Case T-587/08: Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc. v European Commission
   (Case C-294/13 P)
   2013/C 252/28
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: A. Biolan, M. Kellerbauer, P.J.O. Van Nuffel, agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc., Internationale Fruchtimport Gesellschaft Weichert GmbH & Co. KG

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside point 1 of the operative part judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2013 in Case T-587/08, Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. v Commission;

               —

               Give final judgment by setting the amount of the fine for Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. at EUR 9 800 000;

               —

               Order Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. to pay the costs of the appeal and such proportion of the costs of the proceedings before the General Court as the Court of Justice considers appropriate.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission submits that the General Court infringed Article 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (1) read together with the Commission notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (2) and the principle of effective enforcement of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, by considering that information supplied to the Commission in response to a request for information must be taken into account for a reduction of the fine as voluntary cooperation having facilitated the Commission’s investigation.
   In the alternative, the Commission submits that the General Court infringed Article 23 of Regulation No 1/2003 and the duty to state reasons by reducing the fine imposed on Del Monte for Weichert’s cooperation during the administrative procedure although Del Monte and Weichert no longer formed part of the same undertaking at the point in time of Weichert’s alleged cooperative conduct.

      (1)  OJ L 1, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ C 45, p. 3.


title: Case T-348/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 September 2007 — Koninklijke Friesland Foods v Commission (State aid — Tax scheme of aid implemented by the Netherlands — International financing activities of groups of companies — Decision declaring the aid scheme to be incompatible with the common market — Transitional provision — Protection of legitimate expectations — Principle of equal treatment — Admissibility — Legal interest in bringing proceedings)

text:
               20.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/24

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 September 2007 — Koninklijke Friesland Foods v Commission
   (Case T-348/03) (1)

   (State aid - Tax scheme of aid implemented by the Netherlands - International financing activities of groups of companies - Decision declaring the aid scheme to be incompatible with the common market - Transitional provision - Protection of legitimate expectations - Principle of equal treatment - Admissibility - Legal interest in bringing proceedings)
   (2007/C 247/35)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Koninklijke Friesland Foods NV, formerly Friesland Coberco Dairy Foods Holding NV (Meppel, Netherlands) (represented by: E. Pijnacker Hordijk and W. Geursen, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. van Vliet, V. Di Bucci and S. Noë, Agents)
   Re:
   Action for annulment of Article 2 of Commission Decision 2003/515/EC of 17 February 2003 on the State aid implemented by the Netherlands for international financing activities (OJ 2003 L 180, p. 52) in so far as it excludes from the transitional scheme those operators who, as at 11 July 2001, had lodged a request with the Netherlands tax authority for application of the aid scheme in question but whose request had not yet been determined by that date.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 2 of Commission Decision 2003/515/EC of 17 February 2003 on the State aid implemented by the Netherlands for international financing activities in so far as it excludes from the transitional scheme which it lays down those operators who, as at 11 July 2001, had lodged a request with the Netherlands tax authority for application of the aid scheme in question but whose request had not yet been determined by that date;

               2.

               Orders the Commission to pay all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 21 of 24.1.2004.


title: Case T-58/00: Action brought on 12 March 2000 by Bond van de Fegarbel-Beroepsverenigingen against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
27.5.2000             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 149/37
— infringes Article 101a of the Staff Regulations, as well as           Action brought on 12 March 2000 by Bond van de
    the principle of the hierarchy of appointing authorities and        Fegarbel-Beroepsverenigingen against the Commission of
    the principle of the hierarchy of rules;                                              the European Communities
— breaches the principle of protection of legitimate expec-                                      (Case T-58/00)
    tations; and
                                                                                (2000/C 149/71)
— is vitiated by misuse of powers and failure to comply with
    proper procedure.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 12 March 2000 by Bond van de
                                                                        Fegarbel-Beroepsverenigingen, a non-profit-making associ-
Action brought on 14 March 2000 by AB Banan-Kompani-                    ation under Belgian law, established in Brussels, and two other
et and Skandinaviska Bananimporten AB against the                       applicants, represented by J. van Hoof, of the Brussels Bar,
Council of the European Union and the Commission of                     with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                 the European Communities                               F. Brouxel.
                                                                        The applicants claim that the Court should:
                         (Case T-57/00)
                                                                        — annul Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 of 22 December
                        (2000/C 149/70)                                      1999 in so far as, whether or not in conjunction with the
                                                                             White Paper, infringements are to have no retroactive
                                                                             effect and/or Article 4 failed to include abuses attributable
                  (Language of the case: English)                            to economic dependence;
                                                                        — in the alternative: set aside the consultation procedure and
An action against the Council of the European Union and the
                                                                             order that this be repeated in a transparent manner, and
Commission of the European Communities was brought
                                                                             that a statement of position be requested in regard to the
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                             abolition of the retroactive effects of automatic nullity
on 14 March 2000 by AB Banan-Kompaniet, Stockholm and
                                                                             provided for in Article 81(2) EC, and the consequences of
Skandinaviska Bananimporten AB, Arsta (Sweden) represented
                                                                             the modernisation programme for the situation of small
by Bernard O’Connor, Solicitor.
                                                                             and medium-sized undertakings and consumers, as well as
                                                                             economic dependence in general and economic depen-
The applicants claim that the Court should:                                  dence by virtue of cumulative effect in particular;
— require the Commission and the Council, pursuant to                   — order the Commission to pay costs.
    Articles 178 and 215 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 235
    EC and 288 EC), to pay the applicants damages in respect
    of the loss suffered by them by reason of the unlawful              Pleas in law and main arguments
    adoption of Council Decision 94/800 and Commission
    Regulation (EC) No 478/95.                                          The Bond van de Fegarbel-Beroepsverenigingen is an associ-
                                                                        ation which safeguards the interests of the regional associations
                                                                        of garage owners and their members.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        This application seeks the annulment of Commission Regu-
The applicants are part of the Saba Group of companies and              lation (EC) No 2790/1999 of 22 December 1999 on the
are engaged in the purchase, import and sale of bananas in              application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of
Scandinavia. They were entitled to Category A banana import             vertical agreements and concerted practices (OJ 1999 L 336,
licences and imported bananas from Colombia and Costa Rica.             p. 21).
Their application concerns the damage suffered by them as a
result of having to purchase export licences in the period 1995
                                                                        This regulation forms part of a European Commission pro-
to 1998 in order to enable them to exercise their rights to             gramme for the modernisation of the application of the
obtain import licences.
                                                                        Community rules on competition. Within the context of this
                                                                        programme, the applicants also refer to the Green Paper on
The pleas in law and main arguments raised by the applicants            vertical restraints on competition (COM(96) 721 def.), the
are similar to those put forward in Case T-56/00.                       White Paper on modernisation of the competition rules (OJ
                                                                        1999 C 132), Regulation (EC) No 1216/1999 amending
                                                                        Regulation No 17 (OJ 1999 L 148, p. 5), and the Guidelines
                                                                        on Vertical Restraints (OJ 1999 C 270, p. 12).
 ---pagebreak--- C 149/38               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      27.5.2000
The applicants submit that, in the consultation procedure, the             — Order the Commission to pay the costs.
Commission failed to take any account of the comments
on the abovementioned publications made by the sectors
concerned.                                                                 Pleas in law and main arguments
First plea in law: lack of competence/ ultra vires/ breach by the          The present proceedings are directed against the final decision
Commission of essential procedural requirements:                           contained in the letter of 22 December 1999, reference
                                                                           D17587, in which the Commission rejected complaint
                                                                           No IV/37332 Compagnia Portuale Pietro Chiesa v Italian
With regard to vertical agreements, Articles 2, 3, 4 and 5 of              Republic, Autorità Portuale del Porto di Genova and Compag-
the contested regulation introduce ‘a posteriori control’. This            nia Unica Lavoratori Merci Varie (C.U.L.M.V.), relating to an
control has consequences solely for the future. In addition,               infringement of Article 86 of the EC Treaty in conjunction
abuses attributable to economic dependence are not taken into              with Article 82 thereof, deriving from an alleged abuse by
consideration.                                                             C.U.L.M.V. of its dominant position, resulting from its de facto
                                                                           monopoly in the Port of Genoa as regards the conduct of port
The abolition of the automatic nullity of agreements prohibited            operations and the supply of port labour.
under Article 81 EC constitutes an infringement of the Treaty.
The new rules create conditions under which the entire free                In support of its claim, the applicant alleges, first, a failure to
market can, with impunity, be restricted to approved dealers               undertake investigative measures, in so far as the defendant
and supplies to non-approved dealers can be excluded.                      did not commence proceedings under Council Regulation
                                                                           No 17/62 either against C.U.L.M.V. or against the Genoa Port
                                                                           Authority. The applicant alleges in that regard that the
Second plea in law: the consultations which preceded the                   contested practices derive:
adoption of the regulation were not conducted in a manner
consistent with the spirit of the Treaty:                                  — From the conduct of C.U.L.M.V. which, carrying on
                                                                               business simultaneously as a terminal operator and an
The new rules have been presented by the Commission as                         undertaking supplying labour, hampers access to those
constituting no more than a modernisation of procedures,                       markets by competitors. The Port Authority is aware of
whereas the spirit, if not the letter, of the Treaty has been                  this situation.
ignored. The scope of the modernisation programme has,
moreover, been considered only from the point of view of                   — From administrative measures and/or failure to act by the
facilitating the tasks of the European Commission.                             Port Authority, which the applicant criticises as being
                                                                               contrary to the Community competition rules.
                                                                           The applicant also alleges breach of the principle audi alterem
                                                                           partem and submits that the statement of the reasons for the
                                                                           contested decision is contradictory.
Action brought on 17 March 2000 by Compagnia Portuale
Pietro Chiesa v Commission of the European Communi-
                                ties
                                                                           Action brought on 16 March 2000 by Continental and
                          (Case T-59/00)                                   Overseas Investments NV against the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
                         (2000/C 149/72)
                                                                                (Case T-64/00)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                                                 (2000/C 149/73)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                                      (Language of the case: Dutch)
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on 17 March
2000 by Compagnia Portuale Pietro Chiesa, represented by
Giuseppe Michele Giacomini and Barbara Della Barile, of the                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Genoa Bar.                                                                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 16 March 2000 by Continental
                                                                           and Overseas Investments NV (formerly ‘Jubertrade NV’),
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:              established in Antwerp, represented by Y. Van Gerven and J.
                                                                           Bernaerts, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
— Annul the letter of 22 December 1999, reference D17587,                  Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch, of the Luxembourg
     of the European Commission, Competition DG;                           Bar, 11 Rue Goethe.


title: Case T-220/11: Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2012 — TeamBank v OHIM — Fercredit Servizi Finanziari (f@ir Credit) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark f@ir Credit — Earlier Community figurative mark FERCREDIT — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               27.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/22

      Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2012 — TeamBank v OHIM — Fercredit Servizi Finanziari (f@ir Credit)
      (Case T-220/11) (1)

      (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark f@ir Credit - Earlier Community figurative mark FERCREDIT - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
      (2012/C 331/39)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: TeamBank AG Nürnberg (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: T. Kiphuth, H. Lindner and D. Terheggen, lawyers)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court: Fercredit Servizi Finanziari SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: G. Petrocchi, A. Masetti Zannini de Concina and R. Cartella, lawyers)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 February 2011 (Case R 719/2010-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Fercredit Servizi Finanziari SpA and TeamBank AG Nürnberg.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court rules:

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed.

                  2.

                  TeamBank AG Nürnberg is ordered to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 194, 2.7.2011.


title: Case T-368/15: Order of the General Court of 14 July 2016 — Alcimos Consulting v ECB (Action for annulment — Action for compensation — Decisions adopted by the Governing Council of the ECB — Provision of emergency liquidity assistance to Greek banks — Ceiling — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility — Infringement of procedural requirements)

text:
               12.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 335/46

         Order of the General Court of 14 July 2016 — Alcimos Consulting v ECB
   (Case T-368/15) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Action for compensation - Decisions adopted by the Governing Council of the ECB - Provision of emergency liquidity assistance to Greek banks - Ceiling - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility - Infringement of procedural requirements))
   (2016/C 335/61)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Alcimos Consulting SMPC (Athens, Greece) (represented by: F. Rodolaki, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: K. Laurinavičius and M. Szablewska, acting as Agents, assisted by H.-G. Kamann, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application, first, under Article 263 TFEU, for annulment of the decision of the Governing Council of the ECB of 28 June 2015 by which it was decided to maintain the ceiling to the provision of emergency liquidity assistance to Greek banks at the level decided on 26 June 2015 and for annulment of the decision of the Governing Council of the ECB of 6 July 2015 by which it was decided to maintain that ceiling at that same level and to adjust the haircuts on collateral accepted by the Bank of Greece in that respect, and application, secondly, under Article 268 TFEU, for compensation for the damage which the applicant allegedly suffered as a result of those decisions.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Alcimos Consulting SMPC shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 302, 14.9.2015.


title: Case C-464/09 P: Appeal brought on 25 November 2009 by Holland Malt B.V. against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2009 in Case T-369/06: Holland Malt B.V. v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/38

         Appeal brought on 25 November 2009 by Holland Malt B.V. against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2009 in Case T-369/06: Holland Malt B.V. v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-464/09 P)
   2010/C 24/67
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Holland Malt B.V. (represented by: O. W. Brouwer, A.C.E. Stoffer, P. Schepens, advocaten)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities, Kingdom of the Netherlands

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside paragraphs 168 to 180 of the judgment of the court of First Instance;

               —

               Refer the case back to the CFI or annul the decision of the Commission; and

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appeal is directed against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 September 2009 in case T-369/06, Holland Malt B.V. v. Commission (the Judgment), dismissing the application brought by Holland Malt against the decision of the Commission declaring that a subsidy conditionally granted to the Appellant constitutes incompatible aid. The Appellant submits that the Court of First Instance made errors of law and a procedural error in dismissing the application brought by Holland Malt. In this regard, the Appellant has forwarded the following pleas:

               A.

               The Court of First Instance erred in law in paragraphs 169 to 180 of the Judgment by incorrectly interpreting Article 87(3)(c) EC (1) and by incorrectly interpreting and applying the Community Guidelines on state aid in the agricultural sector. In this regard, the Judgment is moreover vitiated by an inconsistent and inadequate reasoning; and

               B.

               The Court of First Instance committed a procedural error in paragraph 168 of the Judgment by misreading and misrepresenting one of the arguments submitted by the Appellant, which adversely affected the interests of the Appellant.

      (1)  OJ C 321 E, p. 76


title: Case T-322/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of  21 March 2006  — Colgate-Palmolive v OHIM

text:
               20.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/18

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 21 March 2006 — Colgate-Palmolive v OHIM
   (Case T-322/04) (1)

   (2006/C 121/35)

      Language of the case: Spanish

   The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 262, 23.10.2004.


title: Judgment of the Court of 16 December 2015 in Case E-5/15 — Matja Kumba T M'bye and Others v Stiftelsen Fossumkollektivet (Directive 2003/88/EC — Working time — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Organisation of working time — Rest periods — Maximum weekly working time — Derogations from minimum rest periods — Workers' consent — Detriment)

text:
               5.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 2/3

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 16 December 2015
   in Case E-5/15
   Matja Kumba T M'bye and Others v Stiftelsen Fossumkollektivet
   (Directive 2003/88/EC — Working time — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Organisation of working time — Rest periods — Maximum weekly working time — Derogations from minimum rest periods — Workers' consent — Detriment)
   (2017/C 2/03)
   In Case E-5/15, Matja Kumba T M'bye and Others v Stiftelsen Fossumkollektivet — REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by Eidsivating Court of Appeal (Eidsivating lagmannsrett) concerning the interpretation of Article 6 and Article 22(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 16 December 2015, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               A working time amounting to an average of 84 hours per week in a cohabitant care arrangement is compatible with Article 6 of Directive 2003/88/EC, in circumstances governed by Article 22(1)(a), provided that the worker has explicitly, freely and individually agreed to perform such work, and the general principles of the protection of the safety and health of the worker are observed. This entails that where an EEA State makes use of the option provided for in Article 22(1) of the Directive, the national legislature must take due account of the physical and mental well-being of workers. However, such a working time arrangement is only compatible with Articles 3 and 5 of the Directive if the conditions for the application of the derogation in Article 17(2), in conjunction with Article 17(3)(c)(i), are fulfilled.

               2.

               A provision of national law, according to which a worker's consent to work more than 60 hours per week in a cohabitant care arrangement cannot be revoked, is compatible with Articles 6 and 22 of the Directive, provided that the general principles of the protection of the safety and health of workers are observed.

               3.

               A notice of dismissal and offer of re-engagement on new terms, following a refusal by a worker to agree to a working time arrangement of more than 48 hours over a seven-day period, is not to be considered a detriment within the meaning of Article 22(1)(b) of the Directive if the termination of the employment is based upon reasons that are fully independent of the worker's refusal to agree to perform such additional work.


title: Case C-520/08 P: Appeal brought on 27 November 2008 by HUP Uslugi Polska sp. z o.o. (formerly HP Temporärpersonalgesellschaft mbH) against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 24 September 2008 in Case T-248/05 HUP Uslugi Polska sp. z o.o. (formerly HP Temporärpersonalgesellschaft mbH) v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Manpower, Inc.

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/7

         Appeal brought on 27 November 2008 by HUP Uslugi Polska sp. z o.o. (formerly HP Temporärpersonalgesellschaft mbH) against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 24 September 2008 in Case T-248/05 HUP Uslugi Polska sp. z o.o. (formerly HP Temporärpersonalgesellschaft mbH) v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Manpower, Inc.
   (Case C-520/08 P)
   (2009/C 55/10)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellant: HUP Uslugi Polska sp. z o.o. (formerly HP Temporärpersonalgesellschaft mbH) (represented by: M. Ciresa, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Manpower, Inc.
   Form of order sought
   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the judgment under appeal

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appellant submits that the judgment of the Court of First Instance infringes Articles 51(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b), 7(1)(c), 7(1)(d) and 7(1)(g) of Council Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trademark.


title: Case C-322/06: Action brought on 20 July 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
               30.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 237/7

         Action brought on 20 July 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-322/06)
   (2006/C 237/12)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: N. Yerrell and W. Wils, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to give effect to Directive 2002/15/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 on the organisation of the working time of persons performing mobile road transport activities, (1)or in any event by failing to inform the Commission of those laws, regulations and administrative provisions, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               Order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period within which the directive had to be implemented in national law expired on 23 March 2005.

      (1)  OJ 2002 L 80, p. 35.


title: Case T-403/05 RENV: Order of the General Court of 10 January 2013 — MyTravel v Commission (Access to institutions’ documents — Documents concerning a merger decision annulled by the General Court — Refusal to grant access — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               9.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/20

         Order of the General Court of 10 January 2013 — MyTravel v Commission
   (Case T-403/05 RENV) (1)

   (Access to institutions’ documents - Documents concerning a merger decision annulled by the General Court - Refusal to grant access - No need to adjudicate)
   2013/C 71/31
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: MyTravel Group plc (Rochdale, Lancashire, United Kingdom) (represented initially by: S. Cardell, B. Louveaux, P. Walter and P. Horan, Solicitors, and subsequently by: B. Louveaux, P. Walter and P. Horan, Solicitors)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: C. O’Reilly and P. Costa de Oliveira, acting as Agents, and subsequently by: P. Costa de Oliveira, acting as Agent)

      Interveners in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented initially by: A. Falk, C. Meyer-Seitz, C. Stege and U. Persson, acting as Agents, and subsequently by: A. Falk and U. Persson, acting as Agents); Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: C.H. Vang and V. Pasternak Jørgensen, acting as Agents); Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels and J. Langer, acting as Agents); and the Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski, acting as Agent)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and B. Klein, acting as Agents); French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, G. de Bergues and A. Adam, acting as Agents); United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: E. Jenkinson and S. Ossowski, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission Decisions of 5 September (D(2005) 8461) and 12 October 2005 (D(2005) 9763) rejecting an application brought by the applicant to obtain access to certain documents preparatory to Commission Decision 2000/276/EC of 22 September 1999 declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the common market and the EEA Agreement (Case IV/M.1524 — Airtours/First Choice) (OJ 2000 L 93, p. 1), and to documents drafted by the Commission’s services as a consequence of the annulment of that decision by the judgment of the General Court in Case T 342/99 Airtours v Commission (2002) ECR II-2585

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               MyTravel Group plc shall bear half of its own costs in Cases T-403/05 and T-403/05 RENV and pay half of the costs incurred by the European Commission in Cases T-403/05 and T-403/05 RENV.

               3.

               The European Commission shall bear half of its own costs in Cases T-403/05 and T-403/05 RENV and pay half of the costs incurred by MyTravel Group plc in Cases T-403/05 and T-403/05 RENV.

               4.

               The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the Kingdom of Sweden in Case C-506/08 P.

               5.

               The Kingdom of Sweden shall bear its own costs in Case T-403/05 RENV.

               6.

               The Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the French Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Finland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland shall bear their own costs in Cases C-508/06 P and T-403/05 RENV.

      (1)  OJ C 10, 14.1.2006.


title: Case T-453/14: Action brought on 13 June 2014  — Magyar Bencés Kongregáció Pannonhalmi Főapátság v European Parliament

text:
               8.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/42

         Action brought on 13 June 2014 — Magyar Bencés Kongregáció Pannonhalmi Főapátság v European Parliament
   (Case T-453/14)
   2014/C 303/50
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Parties

      Applicant: Magyar Bencés Kongregáció Pannonhalmi Főapátság (Pannonhalma, Hungary) (represented by: D. Sobor, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul decision MS/sd(IPOL-COM-PETI D (2014) 14486) of the Petitions Committee of the European Parliament of 16 April 2014 to file without further action the petition presented in the Lónyay Mansion in Rusovce (Slovakia) case;

               —

               Order the European Parliament to examine the petition and take all the measures required by law;

               —

               Order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant argues that the Petitions Committee infringed procedural rules in that no reasons were stated for the contested decision.
   In that regard, the applicant points out that, pursuant to Rule [215](8) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, petitions declared inadmissible by the committee are to be filed and the petitioner informed of the decision and the reasons for it. The applicant also states that, in breach of that Rule, the defendant gave no reasons for its view that the subject matter of the petition had no connection with the European Union's fields of activity. The applicant also cites the judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2011 in Case T-308/07 Tegebauer v Parliament [2011] ECR II-279.


title: Case C-455/00: Action brought on 13 December 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
C 79/10                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     10.3.2001
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                     band der landwirtschaftlichen Krankenkassen (5) Verband
                                                                           der Angestellten-Krankenkassen e.V. (6) AEV — Arbeiter-
                        of 12 October 2000                                 Ersatzkassen-Verband e.V. (7) Seekrankenkasse and (8) Bundes-
                                                                           knappschaft, joined parties: (1) Federal Republic of Germany,
in Case C-278/00 R: Hellenic Republic v Commission of                      and (2) Bundesausschuss der Ärzte und Krankenkassen on the
                 the European Communities (1)                              following questions:
 (Interim measures — Suspension of operation — State aid)                  1.   Must statutory sickness funds and the associations thereof
                                                                                which are subject to State supervision be regarded as
                           (2001/C 79/18)                                       undertakings or associations of undertakings within the
                                                                                meaning of Article 81 et seq. EC for the purpose of the
                                                                                joint determination of the level of uniform fixed amounts
                     (Language of the case: Greek)                              for medicinal products to which the funds’ liability is
                                                                                limited in relation to the insured persons?
(Provisional translation: the definitive translation will be published     2.   If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative,
                   in the European Court Reports)                               does determination of a fixed amount as referred to in
                                                                                the first question constitute an agreement which restricts
In Case C-278/00 R: Hellenic Republic (Agents: I. Chalkias and                  competition within the meaning of Article 81(1) EC?
C. Tsiavou) v Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: J. Flett and D. Triantafyllou) — application for
                                                                           3.   Do Articles 81 and 86 EC preclude legislation giving
suspension of operation, primarily, of Commission Decision
                                                                                social security funds and associations thereof the power
E(2000) 686 final of 1 March 2000 relating to the aid
                                                                                to determine fixed amounts of the kind referred to in the
schemes implemented by Greece in order to regulate debts of
                                                                                first question for medicinal products?
agricultural cooperatives in the years 1992 and 1994 including
aid for the reorganisation of the dairy cooperative AGNO,
alternatively of Article 2 of that decision — the President of
the Court has made an order on 12 October 2000, the
operative part of which is as follows:
1.    The application for interim measures is dismissed.
2.    The costs are reserved.
                                                                           Action brought on 13 December 2000 by the Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
(1) OJ C 259 of 9.9.2000.
                                                                                (Case C-455/00)
                                                                                (2001/C 79/20)
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landessozial-                  An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
gericht Nordrhein-Westfalen by order of that court of                      Court of Justice of the European Communities on 13 December
28 September 2000 in the case of Merz + Co. GmbH &                         2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
Co. v (1) AOK Bundesverband (2) Bundesverband der                          represented by Antonio Aresu, of its Legal Service, acting as
Betriebskrankenkassen (3) IKK-Bundesverband (4) Bun-                       Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
desverband der landwirtschaftlichen Krankenkassen                          of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner
(5)Verband der Angestellten-Krankenkassen e.V. (6) AEV                     Centre, Kirchberg.
— Arbeiter-Ersatzkassen-Verband e.V. (7) Seekrankenkas-
se and (8) Bundesknappschaft, joined parties: (1) Federal
Republic of Germany, and (2) Bundesausschuss der Ärzte                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
                        und Krankenkassen
                                                                           —    Declare that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
                          (Case C-428/00)                                       obligations under Article 9(1) to (3) of Council Directive
                                                                                90/270/EEC (1) of 29 May 1990 on the minimum safety
                           (2001/C 79/19)                                       and health requirements for work with display screen
                                                                                equipment (fifth individual Directive within the meaning
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (2), inasmuch as
European Communities by order of the Landessozialgericht                        it:
Nordrhein-Westfalen (Higer Social Court of North Rhine-
Westphalia) of 28 September 2000, which was received at the                     (a)   does not ensure regular eye and eyesight tests for all
Court Registry on 20 November 2000, for a preliminary ruling                          workers who use display screen equipment within
in the case of (1) AOK Bundesverband (2) Bundesverband der                            the meaning of Article 2(c) of the abovementioned
Betriebskrankenkassen (3) IKK-Bundesverband (4) Bundesver-                            directive;
 ---pagebreak--- 10.3.2001                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 79/11
       (b) does not ensure that an additional ophthalmological              —    According to Article 9(3) of Directive 90/270/EEC,
             test is carried out whenever necessary as a result of               workers are entitled to receive ‘special corrective
             the regular eye and eyesight tests;                                 appliances appropriate for the work concerned’, where
                                                                                this proves necessary following testing and the wearing
                                                                                of normal corrective appliances is not possible. Such a
                                                                                provision is the logical and necessary corollary to rules
       (c)   does not define the conditions for providing the
                                                                                requiring the carrying out of eye and eyesight tests, and
             workers concerned with corrective appliances                        examination by an oculist where necessary, with a view
             appropriate for the work concerned.
                                                                                to offering complete protection of the health and safety
                                                                                of workers at risk.
—      Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                            —    However, in Article 55 of Decree-Law 626/94 no pro-
                                                                                vision is made which expressly guarantees such a right.
                                                                                Article 55(5) merely states: ‘expenditure in respect of
                                                                                providing special corrective appliances appropriate for
                                                                                the work concerned is to be borne by the employer’,
                                                                                which is clear, but not sufficient to identify the precise
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                criterion establishing the right of workers to benefit from
                                                                                such provisions.
The Commission finds that the Italian Republic has failed to
fulfil its obligations under Article 9(1) to (3) insofar as:                (1) OJ 1990 L 156, p. 14.
                                                                            (2) Council Directive of 12 June 1989, OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1.
—      Italian legislation is to be regarded as incompatible with
       Directive 90/270/EEC as regards regular eye and eyesight
       tests for workers who have commenced work with display
       screen equipment. Article 9(1) of the abovementioned
       directive provides that all workers working on display
       screen equipment are entitled to regular eye and eyesight
       tests after commencing display screen work in order to
       prevent visual difficulties which may be due to display
       screen work, as well as other possible illness, connected            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger
       with overexposure to radiation emitted by display equip-             Verwaltungssenat des Landes Oberösterreich by order of
       ment. The workers concerned, therefore, are to be                    15 December 2000 in the case of Primetzhofer Stahl- und
       regarded as workers at risk for the purposes of Directive                    Fahrzeugbau GmbH v Land Oberösterreich
       89/391. However, according to the wording of Article
       55(2) of Decree Law No 626/94, regular tests to take
       place at least every two years, are made available only to                                     (Case C-464/00)
       two specific classes of worker: those who were initially
       classified as fit, with corrective lenses, for work on display
       equipment and those over 45 years of age. Workers                                               (2001/C 79/21)
       under 45 years of age who were initially passed fit to
       work on video equipment without corrective lenses are
       thus wholly excluded from the protection afforded by                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
       Article 9(1) of the directive.                                       European Communities by order of 15 December 2000 by the
                                                                            Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Oberösterreich,
                                                                            which was received at the Court Registry on 22 December
                                                                            2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Primetzhofer
—      However, the Commission would draw attention to the                  Stahl- und Fahrzeugbau GmbH v Land Oberösterreich on the
       fact that workers excluded by virtue of the Italian                  following questions:
       legislation from the regular eye and eyesight tests pro-
       vided for by Article 9(1) of Directive 90/270/EEC are
       in practice excluded also from the ophthalmological                  (a)  Do the rules of a Member State under which the court
       examination provided for by Article 9(2), since usually it                (the independent body) in the review procedure must also
       is the former test which shows signs of eyesight problems.                act of its own motion and determine the course of the
       In any event, even if Article 55(4) of Decree-Law 626/94                  preliminary investigation constitute an infringement of
       mentions the possibility of such an examination, the                      the first half of the final sentence of Article 2(8) of
       legislation does not offer any assurance that it will be                  Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on
       carried out in every case where the normal regular eye                    the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrat-
       and eyesight test shows that further analysis is necessary,               ive provisions relating to the application of review
       thus significantly reducing the level of protection pro-                  procedures to the award of public supply and public
       vided for by the directive itself.                                        works contracts? (1)


title: Case C-146/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 10 February 2005 in the case of Albert Collée, as full legal successor to Collée KG v Finanzamt Limburg a.d. Lahn

text:
               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/25

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 10 February 2005 in the case of Albert Collée, as full legal successor to Collée KG v Finanzamt Limburg a.d. Lahn
   (Case C-146/05)
   (2005/C 143/36)
   Language of the case: German
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) (Germany) of 10 February 2005, received at the Court Registry on 1 April 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Albert Collée, as full legal successor to Collée KG, and Finanzamt Limburg a.d. Lahn on the following questions:

               1.

               Is a tax authority entitled to refuse to allow an intra-Community supply, which undoubtedly occurred, to be exempt from tax solely on the ground that the taxable person did not produce the prescribed accounting evidence in good time?

               2.

               Does the answer to the question depend on whether the taxable person initially knowingly concealed the fact that an intra-Community supply had occurred?


title: Case T-274/12: Order of the General Court of 7 January 2013 — Alfastar Benelux v Council (Actions for failure to act — Action devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate — Actions for damages — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               23.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/13

         Order of the General Court of 7 January 2013 — Alfastar Benelux v Council
   (Case T-274/12) (1)

   (Actions for failure to act - Action devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate - Actions for damages - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
   2013/C 55/24
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Alfastar Benelux SA (Ixelles, Belgium) (represented by: N. Keramidas and N. Korogiannakis, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Vitsentzatos and E. Chatziioakeimidou, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for a declaration that the Council has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 266 TFEU in failing to take the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 20 October 2011 in Case T-57/09 Alfastar Benelux v Council, not published in the ECR, and, in addition, a claim for damages under Article 340 TFEU

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for a declaration of failure to act, brought by Alfastar Benelux SA.

               2.

               The claim for damages brought by Alfastar Benelux is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

               3.

               Alfastar Benelux shall bear 50 % of its own costs and pay 50 % of the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union. The Council shall bear 50 % of its own costs and pay 50 % of the costs incurred by Alfastar Benelux.

      (1)  OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.


title: Case F-107/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 16 January 2014  — Guinet v EIB (Civil Service — Staff of the EIB — Pension scheme — Transfer of pension rights — Compensation for the disadvantages resulting from the delay in the transfer of the pension rights — Condition of effective transfer of pension rights acquired in a scheme other than that of the EIB — Principle of equal treatment)

text:
               14.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/66

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 16 January 2014 — Guinet v EIB
   (Case F-107/12) (1)

   ((Civil Service - Staff of the EIB - Pension scheme - Transfer of pension rights - Compensation for the disadvantages resulting from the delay in the transfer of the pension rights - Condition of effective transfer of pension rights acquired in a scheme other than that of the EIB - Principle of equal treatment))
   2014/C 223/67
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Philippe Guinet (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: T. Gilliams, G. Nuvoli, acting as Agents, and D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application to annul the EIB’s implied decision to reject the applicant’s request to recalculate his years of pensionable service and an application for damages

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Guinet to bear his own costs and to pay three-quarters of the costs incurred by the European Investment Bank;

               3.

               Orders the European Investment Bank to bear a quarter of its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 366, 14.11.2012, p. 41.


title: Case C-196/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Special Commissioners by order of that court dated 29 April 2004, in the case of Cadbury Schweppes plc and Cadbury Schweppes Overseas Ltd against the Commissioners of Inland Revenue

text:
               26.6.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 168/3

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Special Commissioners by order of that court dated 29 April 2004, in the case of Cadbury Schweppes plc and Cadbury Schweppes Overseas Ltd against the Commissioners of Inland Revenue
   (Case C-196/04)
   (2004/C 168/05)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by an order of the Special Commissioners dated 29 April 2004, which was received at the Court Registry on 3 May 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Cadbury Schweppes plc and Cadbury Schweppes Overseas Ltd and the Commissioners of Inland Revenue on the following question:

      ‘Do articles 43, 49 and 56 of the EC Treaty preclude national tax legislation such as that in an issue in the main proceedings, which provides in specified circumstances for the imposition of a charge upon a company resident in that Member State in respect of the profits of a subsidiary company resident in another Member State and subject to a lower level of taxation?’


title: Case C-313/16 P: Appeal brought on 27 May 2016 by Médis — Companhia portuguesa de seguros de saúde, SA against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 15 March 2016 in Case T-774/15: Médis v EUIPO — Médis

text:
               19.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 475/10

         Appeal brought on 27 May 2016 by Médis — Companhia portuguesa de seguros de saúde, SA against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 15 March 2016 in Case T-774/15: Médis v EUIPO — Médis
   (Case C-313/16 P)
   (2016/C 475/14)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Médis — Companhia portuguesa de seguros de saúde, SA (represented by: M. Martinho do Rosário, advogada)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
   By order of 19 October 2016 the Court of Justice (Eight Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 15 September 1998 in Case T-100/94: Kapniki A. Michalidis AE and Others v. Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment - Regulation (EC) No 3477/93 - Inadmissibility)

text:
C 340/20              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  7.11.98
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                           in the tobacco sector (OJ L 317 of 18.12.1993, p. 30) Ð
                    of 16 September 1998                            the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed
                                                                    of: A. Kalogeropoulos, President, and C. W. Bellamy and
in Case T-234/97: Lars Bo Rasmussen v. Commission of                J. Pirrung, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
                the European Communities (1)                        15 September 1998, the operative part of which is as
(Officials   Ð Promotion Ð Equal treatment                 Ð        follows:
            Consideration of comparative merits)
                         (98/C 340/36)                              1. the application is dismissed as inadmissible;
               (Language of the case: French)                       2. the applicant shall pay the Commission's costs. The
                                                                        intervener shall bear its own costs.
In Case T-234/97: Lars Bo Rasmussen, an official of the
Commission of the European Communities, residing at                 (1) OJ C 132 of 14.5.1994.
Dalheim (Luxembourg), represented by Carlo Revoldini,
of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the latter's Chambers, 180 Route de
Longwy, v. Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: Christine Berardis-Kayser and Alberto Dal Ferro)
Ð application, first, for annulment of the decision of the
Commission not to promote the applicant to grade A 4 in                  ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
the 1996 promotions procedure and, second, for                                          of 15 September 1998
compensation for the resulting damage Ð the Court of
First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P. Lindh,             in Case T-100/94: Kapniki A. Michalidis AE and Others
President, and K. Lenaerts and J. D. Cooke, Judges; J.                    v. Commission of the European Communities (1)
Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has            (Action for annulment Ð Regulation (EC) No 3477/93 Ð
given a judgment on 16 September 1998, in which it:                                         Inadmissibility)
                                                                                (98/C 340/38)
1. dismisses the action;
2. orders the parties to bear their own costs.                                      (Language of the case: Greek)
(1) OJ C 7 of 10.1.1998.                                            In Case T-100/94: Kapniki A. Michalidis AE, P. Moskof
                                                                    AE Kapna eis Filla, M. Bogiatzoglu Eksagogikos Oikos
                                                                    Kapnon AE, Diethnis Kapniki Ð Georgios Allamanis AE
                                                                    and Ekselka Emborikai kai Viomikhanikai Epikhirisis AE,
                                                                    established at Thessaloniki (Greece), represented by Elena
                                                                    Metaxaki, of the Athens Bar, with an address for service
                                                                    in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aikaterini Thill-
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                    Kamitakis, 4 rue de l'Avenir, supported by Hellenic
                    of 15 September 1998                            Republic (Agents: Panagiotis Mylonopoulos, Dimitra
in Case T-79/94: Odetti Nikou Petridi Anonimos                      Tsangaraki, Meletis Tsotsanis and Eleni Lyratzaki), v.
Kapnemborikis Etairia AE v. Commission of the European              Commission of the European Communities (Agent: Maria
                       Communities (1)                              Condou-Durande) Ð application for partial annulment of
                                                                    Commission Regulation (EC) No 3477/93 of 17 December
(Action for annulment Ð Regulation (EC) No 3477/93 Ð                1993 concerning the agricultural conversion rates to be
                        Inadmissibility)                            applied in the tobacco sector (OJ L 317 of 18.12.1993,
                         (98/C 340/37)                              p. 30) Ð the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),
                                                                    composed of: A. Kalogeropoulos, President, and C. W.
                                                                    Bellamy and J. Pirrung, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made
                (Language of the case: Greek)                       an order on 15 September 1998, the operative part of
                                                                    which is as follows:
In Case T-79/94: Odetti Nikou Petridi Anonimos
Kapnemborikis Etairia AE, established at Kavala (Greece),
represented by Konstantinos Adamantopoulos, of the                  1. the application is dismissed as inadmissible;
Athens Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Chambers of ArseÁne Kronshagen, 12 Boulevard de la              2. the applicants shall jointly and severally pay the
Foire, supported by Hellenic Republic (Agents: Panagiotis               Commission's costs. The intervener shall bear its own
Mylonopoulos, Dimitra Tsangaraki, Meletis Tsotsanis                     costs.
and Eleni Lyratzaki), v. Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: Maria Condou-Durande) Ð
application for partial annulment of Commission                     (1) OJ C 132 of 14.5.1994.
Regulation (EC) No 3477/93 of 17 December 1993
concerning the agricultural conversion rates to be applied


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 April 2004 inJoined Cases C-53/02 and C-217/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling fromthe Conseil d'Etat): Communede Braine-le-Château (C-53/02), and Michel Tillieut and Others (C-217/02)(Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/156/EEC — Waste — Management plans — Suitablesites and installations for waste disposal — Permit granted in the absenceof a management plan containing a map specifying planned locations for disposalsites)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/6

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Sixth Chamber)
   of 1 April 2004
   in Joined Cases C-53/02 and C-217/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'Etat): Commune de Braine-le-Château (C-53/02), and Michel Tillieut and Others (C-217/02) (1)

   (Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/156/EEC - Waste - Management plans - Suitable sites and installations for waste disposal - Permit granted in the absence of a management plan containing a map specifying planned locations for disposal sites)
   (2004/C 106/08)
   Language of the case: French
   In Joined Cases C-53/02 and C-217/02 – references to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Conseil d'État (Belgium) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Commune de Braine-le-Château (C-53/02), Michel Tillieut and Others (C-217/02) and Région wallonne, interveners: BIFFA Waste Services SA (C-53/02), Philippe Feron (C-53/02), Philippe De Codt (C-53/02) and Propreté, Assainissement, Gestion de l'environnement SA (PAGE) (C-217/02) – on the interpretation of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39), as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32) – the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and F. Macken, Judges; J Mischo, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 1 April 2004, in which it ruled:

               1)

               Article 7 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991, must be interpreted to mean that the management plan or plans which the competent authorities of the Member States are required to draw up under that provision must include either a geographical map specifying the exact location of waste disposal sites or location criteria which are sufficiently precise to enable the competent authority responsible for issuing a permit under Article 9 of the Directive to determine whether the site or installation in question falls within the management framework provided for by the plan.

               2)

               Article 7(1) of Directive 75/442, as amended by Directive 91/156, must be interpreted as requiring Member States to draw up waste management plans within a reasonable period, which may go beyond the time-limit for transposing Directive 91/156 laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 2(1) of the latter.

               3)

               Articles 4, 5 and 7 of Directive 75/442, as amended by Directive 91/156, read in conjunction with Article 9 thereof, must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State which has not adopted, within the period prescribed, one or more waste management plans relating to suitable sites or installations for waste disposal from issuing individual permits to operate such sites and installations.

      (1)  OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.

      OJ C 191 of 10.8.2002.


title: Case C-216/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 24 April 2017 — Autorità Garante della Concorrenza and Del Mercato — Antitrust, Coopservice Soc. coop. a r.l. v Azienda Socio-Sanitaria Territoriale della Vallecamonica — Sebino (ASST) and Others

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/23

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 24 April 2017 — Autorità Garante della Concorrenza and Del Mercato — Antitrust, Coopservice Soc. coop. a r.l. v Azienda Socio-Sanitaria Territoriale della Vallecamonica — Sebino (ASST) and Others
   (Case C-216/17)
   (2017/C 277/33)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza and del Mercato (AGCM) — Antitrust, Coopservice Soc. coop. a r.l.

      Defendants: Azienda Socio-Sanitaria Territoriale della Vallecamonica — Sebino (ASST), Azienda Socio-Sanitaria Territoriale del Garda (ASST), Azienda Socio-Sanitaria Territoriale della Vallecamonica (ASST)

      Questions referred

               (1)

               Can Articles 2(5) and 32 of Directive 2004/18/EU (1) and Article 33 of Directive 2014/24/EU (2) be interpreted as allowing the conclusion of a framework agreement in which:

                           (a)

                           a contracting authority acts on its own behalf and on behalf of other contracting authorities specifically indicated, which do not, however, play a direct part in the conclusion of that framework agreement;

                           (b)

                           the quantity of services that may be required by the non-signatory contracting authorities when they enter into the subsequent contracts envisaged in the framework agreement itself is not determined;

               (2)

               if the answer to question (1) should be in the negative,
               Can Articles 2(5) and 32 of Directive 2004/18/EU and Article 33 of Directive 2014/24/EU be interpreted as allowing the conclusion of a framework agreement in which:

                           (a)

                           a contracting authority acts on its own behalf and on behalf of other contracting authorities specifically indicated, which do not, however, play a direct part in the conclusion of that framework agreement;

                           (b)

                           the quantity of services that may be required by the non-signatory contracting authorities when they enter into the subsequent contracts envisaged in the framework agreement itself is determined by reference to their usual requirements.

      (1)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114).

      (2)  Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC Text with EEA relevance (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).