title: Case C-147/99: Action brought on 21 April 1999 by the Italian Republic against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
3.7.1999                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 188/19
(c) Article 17 of Professional law No 1576 of 1933 has not                The applicant claims that the Court should:
     undergone the slightest amendment, not even by means of
     a reference to the other two measures having force of
     law which are relevant in this area (Legislative Decree              — Annul Commission Decision 1999/187/EC of 3 February
     No 115/1992 and Law No 149/1994), to make it clear                       1999 on the clearance of the accounts presented by the
     that lawyers from other Member States are not subject to                 Member States in respect of the expenditure for 1995
     the condition of nationality or that of possession of an                 of the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural
     Italian university degree, or the requirement of having                  Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (notified under
     undertaken legal training in Italy. That lack of care on                 document number C(1999) 209), (1) in so far as, in
     the part of the Italian legislature creates serious legal                determining the total Italian expenditure chargeable to the
     uncertainty for lawyers from other Member States                         Fund, it made certain financial corrections to the detriment
     intending to establish themselves in Italy.                              of Italy.
(d) The Italian State, by requiring lawyers from other Member
     States to have had training comparable to that of an Italian         Pleas in law and main arguments
     graduate in jurisprudence, is abusing the right conferred
     on it by Article 4 of the said Directive 89/48 to make
     recognition of a professional qualification subject to an
     aptitude test. The difficulty of the aptitude test — the latter      A. Public stocks of cereals — Inspections carried out by the
     being far more difficult than the ordinary examination for               UCLAF through an ‘ente assuntore’ — Quantity of wheat
     entitlement to practise as a lawyer — is a manifestation of              in respect of which expenditure was disallowed
     that abusive, and therefore illegal, application of Article 4
     of that directive.
                                                                              As regards the quantity of wheat in respect of which
                                                                              the expenditure was disallowed, the Italian authorities
(e) Despite the fact that Article 9 of Legislative Decree                     challenge in its entirety the sampling procedure for the
     No 115/1992 conferred on the Minister of Justice the                     product for analysis and question whether the alleged
     power to adopt a decree to regulate generally the conduct                quality defects were indeed present from the beginning.
     of the aptitude test, no such decree has yet been issued. It             They also point out that the comparative analysis of the
     follows, first, that Italian law contains no implementing                quantities of durum wheat actually in storage on the date
     provisions, at least as regards lawyers, and, second, that               of each inspection, and the results of the analyses carried
     the transposition of Directive 89/48 is incomplete.                      out — at the same time and on the same samples — by
                                                                              the two laboratories requested to do so disclose that the
                                                                              quantity of wheat unambiguously recognised by both
                                                                              laboratories as falling below the minimum standard
(1) OJ 1989 L 19, of 24.1.1989, p. 16.                                        required for public intervention was less than that alleged
(2) Case C-55/94 [1995] ECR I-4165.
                                                                              by the Commission.
                                                                          B. Consumption aid for olive oil — Failure to revoke approval
                                                                              for the packaging plants in Italy.
                                                                              The Commission had maintained that the date from which
                                                                              withdrawal of recognition should have taken effect was
                                                                              that of each single application contested, rather than that
                                                                              of the report in which the applications themselves were
                                                                              assessed, regarding as unacceptable the aid allocated to the
                                                                              various undertakings immediately following submission of
                                                                              applications (and before the reports).
Action brought on 21 April 1999 by the Italian Republic
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                              The Italian Government argues that, by refusing to take
                                                                              into account the dates of the reports, the Commission in
                                                                              effect refused to acknowledge that before that date — since
                         (Case C-147/99)                                      no withdrawal had been lawfully provided for — all the
                                                                              payments in respect of previous periods had been properly
                                                                              settled and, consequently, must he recognised as chargeable
                         (1999/C 188/43)                                      to the Community budget.
                                                                          C. Ewe/goat premium
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 21 April 1999 by the Italian Republic,                         The Italian Government contests the correction in question
represented by Professor Umberto Leanza, acting as Agent,                     in so far as it has applied a 25% flat-rate adjustment to the
assisted by Danilo Del Gaizo, Avvocato dello Stato, with an                   Sicily region for the 1993 marketing year and to the
address for service in Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy,                     Sicily and Calabria regions for the 1994 marketing year.
5 Rue Marie-Adelaïde.                                                         Application of that percentage is unlawful in that it was
 ---pagebreak--- C 188/20               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         3.7.1999
     effected after the entry into force of the guidelines for         3) In the absence of appropriate technical and/or scientific
     the application of flat-rate adjustments fixed by the                  justification for the limitation, the limitation of the area
     Commission. In any event, in its final report the concili-             for which aid was payable under the Scheme must be
     ation body itself expressed the view that the Commission               considered as arbitrary. Accordingly, to the extent that it
     had not given sufficient reasons for applying the 25% rate.            limits aid payable under the Scheme to 100 ha, the
                                                                            contested decision is inadequately reasoned, arbitrary and
                                                                            thereby contrary to Article 190 of the EC Treaty.
(1) OJ No L 61 of 10.3.1999, p. 37.
                                                                       4) The contested decision is a legislative act which retro-
                                                                            actively imposes a limitation of 100 ha under the Scheme
                                                                            contrary to the fundamental principles of legal certainty
                                                                            and legitimate expectations. Accordingly, to the extent that
                                                                            it limits the aid payable under the Scheme to 100 ha, the
                                                                            contested decision is void.
Action brought on 22 April 1999 by the United Kingdom
  against the Commission of the European Communities                   (1) of 28 April 1989, laying down detailed rules concerning the aid
                                                                           for fibre flax and hemp, OJ L 121,29.04.89, p. 4.
                                                                       (2) of the Council of 29 June 1970 on the common organisation of
                         (Case C-148/99)                                   the market in flax and hemp, OJ English Special Edition 1970(II),
                                                                           p. 411.
                         (1999/C 188/44)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 22 April 1999 by the United Kingdom,
represented by Mr John E. Collins, Assistant Treasury Solicitor,
acting as agent, assisted by Mr Alastair Sutton, Barrister of the
Bar of England and Wales, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the British Embassy, 14, boulevard Roosevelt.            Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs-
                                                                       gerichtshof by order of that court of 23 March 1999 in
                                                                       the case of Johannes Blachnitzky v Landes- Grundver-
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                            kehrskommission beim Amt der Tiroler Landesregierung
— annul those parts of the contested decision which disallow
     the sum of £869,283.00 from the monies allocated to the                                     (Case C-149/99)
     United Kingdom under the scheme set out in Commission
     Regulation 1164/89/EEC (1);
                                                                                (1999/C 188/45)
— order the Commission to pay the United Kingdom’s costs.
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by an order of the Verwaltungsgericht-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        shof (Administrative Court), Austria, of 23 March 1999, which
                                                                       was received at the Court Registry on 22 April 1999, for a
                                                                       preliminary ruling in the case of Johannes Blachnitzky v
                                                                       Landes-Grundverkehrskommission beim Amt der Tiroler Lan-
1) Regulation 1164/89/EEC contains no provision limiting
                                                                       desregierung on the following questions:
     Member States’ discretion in deciding on the relevant
     parameters for reviewing the varieties they decide to
     introduce under the Regulation. There is nothing in the           1. Is Article 1(1) of Council Directive 90/364/EEC of 28 June
     Regulation which imposes a limit of 100 ha (nor even any               1990 on the right of residence (1) in conjunction with
     mention of acreage limitations). The contested decision is             Articles 2(3) and 3 of that directive and possibly in
     based on a misinterpretation of the Regulation and is                  conjunction with Article 6 of the EC Treaty to be
     therefore illegal to the extent that it imposes a limit of             interpreted as meaning that a directly effective right of
     100 ha on the aid payable under the Scheme.                            nationals of another Member State of the European Union
                                                                            to acquire land as a principal residence is in principle to be
2) In taking the contested decision, the Commission in effect               derived therefrom?
     introduced a legislative measure having the effect of
     limiting the scope of Regulation 1164/89/EEC. It did so in        2. Does the acquisition of land by a national of another
     the guise of an administrative decision. It failed to follow           Member State of the European Union in a Member State
     the procedures under Article 12 of Regu-                               for which he possesses a corresponding residence permit
     lation 1308/70/EEC (2). Accordingly, to the extent that it             for nationals of an EU Member State and where he has
     limits the aid payable under the Scheme to 100 ha, the                 his principal residence come under the provisions of
     contested decision is void for manifest lack of competence             Article 73b(l) of the EC Treaty on free movement of capital
     and/or infringement of an essential procedural require-                or those of Council Directive 88/361/EEC of 24 June 1988
     ment, in particular of the procedures provided for in                  for the implementation of Article 67 of the Treaty (2) (the
     Article 12 of Regulation 1308/70/EEC.                                  capital transfer directive)?


title: Case T-202/14: Action brought on 28 March 2014 — LR Health & Beauty Systems/OHIM — Robert McBride (LR nova pure.)

text:
               21.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/20

         Action brought on 28 March 2014 — LR Health & Beauty Systems/OHIM — Robert McBride (LR nova pure.)
   (Case T-202/14)
   2014/C 235/27
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: LR Health & Beauty Systems GmbH (Ahlen, Germany) (represented by: N. Weber and L. Thiel, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Robert McBride Ltd (Manchester, United Kingdom)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 January 2014 in case R 272/2013-2;

               —

               Order the defendant and, if appropriate, the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the word elements ‘LR nova pure.’ for goods in Class 3 — Community trade mark application No 9 8 51  361

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: International trade mark registration of the word mark NOVA

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case C-326/03: Action brought on 25 July 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
20.9.2003               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 226/11
breach of Articles 1 and 3 of Regulation No 881/92 and of                    Action brought on 25 July 2003 by the Commission of the
Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation No 3118/93.                                      European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                                                                                (Case C-326/03)
(1) OJ 1992 L 95, p. 1.
(2) OJ 1993 L 279, p. 1.                                                                              (2003/C 226/19)
                                                                             An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                             the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 25 July
                                                                             2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                             represented by M.-J. Jonczy, of its Legal Service.
Action brought on 24 July 2003 by the Italian Republic
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                             The Commission claims that the Court should:
                           (Case C-324/03)
                                                                             —     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
                                                                                administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                           (2003/C 226/18)                                         Council Directive 99/63/EC of 21 June 1999 concerning
                                                                                the Agreement on the organisation of working time of
An action against the Commission of the European                                   seafarers concluded by the European Shipowners"
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the                         Association (ECSA) and the Federation of Transport
European Communities on 24 July 2003 by the Italian                                Workers" Unions in the European Union (FST) (1), and in
Republic, represented by Ivo Maria Braguglia, acting as Agent,                     any event by failing to inform the Commission thereof,
and Avvocato dello Stato Antonio Cingolo.                                          the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                                under that directive;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                             —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
—     annul the memorandum from Commissioner Barnier of
      14 May 2003 No 26777, received on 20 May 2003, in so
      far as it refuses to accept as eligible for assistance advances        Pleas in law and main arguments
      granted in relation to State aid by the Member States after
      19 February 2003, and all measures on which it is based                The period within which the directive had to be transposed
      or with which it is connected;                                         expired on 30 June 2002.
—     order the Commission of the European Communities to
      pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              (1) OJ L 167, 2.7.1999, p. 33.
The applicant claims that the contested act is manifestly
contrary to Article 32 of Commission Regulation (EC)
No 1260/1999 (1) and Rule No 1, Points 1 and 2 of the
annex to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1685/2000 (2).
According to the applicant, none of the provisions of the                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal
abovementioned regulations assigns significance, for the pur-                Supremo, Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo,
poses of eligibility of amounts granted to the final recipient of            division: three by order of that Court of 21 July 2003 in
the funding by way of State aid, to the activities actually assisted         the case of Colegio de Ingenieros de Caminos, Canales
by the funding itself. On the contrary, the system set out in the            y Puertos against Administración del Estado, other Party:
regulations in question gives significance exclusively to pay-                                            G.M. Imo
ments actually made by the Member State as final recipient, on
the sole condition that they state exactly the expenditure actu-                                      (Case C-330/03)
ally borne by the final recipient itself.
                                                                                (2003/C 226/20)
The applicant also claims that the contested act is unlawful
inasmuch as its statement of reasons is defective and contra-                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
dictory.                                                                     European Communities by order of the Tribunal Supremo,
                                                                             Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo, division: three (Supreme
                                                                             Court, Chamber for Contentious-Administrative Proceedings) of
                                                                             21 July 2003, received at the Court Registry on 29 July 2003, for
(1) OJ 1999 L 161, p. 1.                                                     a preliminary ruling in the case of Colegio de Ingenieros de
(2) OJ 2000 L 193, p. 39.                                                    Caminos, Canales y Puertos against Administración del Estado,
                                                                             other Party: G. M. Imo on the following questions:


title: Case T-220/13: Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori v Commission (State aid — Municipal real estate tax — Exemption granted to non-commercial entities carrying out specific activities — Consolidated text on income tax — Exemption of the one-off municipal tax — Decision partly finding the absence of State aid and party declaring the aid incompatible with the common market — Action for annulment — Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures — Direct concern — Admissibility — Absolute impossibility of recovery — Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               31.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/25

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori v Commission
   (Case T-220/13) (1)

   ((State aid - Municipal real estate tax - Exemption granted to non-commercial entities carrying out specific activities - Consolidated text on income tax - Exemption of the one-off municipal tax - Decision partly finding the absence of State aid and party declaring the aid incompatible with the common market - Action for annulment - Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures - Direct concern - Admissibility - Absolute impossibility of recovery - Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2016/C 402/25)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: initially A. Nucara and E. Gambaro, then E. Gambaro, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially V. Di Bucci, G. Conte and D. Grespan, then G. Conte, D. Grespan and F. Tomat, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri and G. De Bellis, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision of 19 December 2012 on State aid SA.20829 (C 26/2010, ex NN 43/2010 (ex CP 71/2006)) Scheme concerning the municipal real estate tax exemption granted to real estate used by non-commercial entities for specific purposes implemented by Italy (OJ 2013 L 166, p. 24).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori Srl to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the European Commission;

               3)

               Orders the Italian Republic to bear its own costs relating to its intervention.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.


title: Case T-150/03: Action brought on 30 April 2003 by Jose Maria Sison against the Council of the European Union

text:
C 213/36                EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                         6.9.2003
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                                  (3) order Europol to pay the applicant compensation includ-
                            INSTANCE                                                ing in any event the costs of the proceedings.
                          of 25 June 2003
                                                                              Pleas in law and main arguments
in Case T-175/03 R: Norbert Schmitt v European Agency
                        for Reconstruction
                                                                              The applicant has worked for the defendant since 1 July 1999.
                 (Interim relief — Admissibility)                             On 1 July 2003 her contract expires. However, the applicant’s
                                                                              request for a renewal of her contract was rejected by the
                                                                              defendant. The applicant is challenging that decision.
                          (2003/C 213/71)
                    (Language of the case: French)                            In support of her application the applicant first alleges an
                                                                              infringement of the duty to provide a statement of reasons.
In Case T-175/03 R: Norbert Schmitt, residing in Koellerbach                  The applicant goes on to assert that the defendant exceeded its
(Germany), represented by L. Polanz, lawyer, against European                 policy-making powers. The defendant drew up basic principles,
Agency for Reconstruction (Agent: C. Manolopoulos) —                          policy rules and a stage plan to ensure that contracts are
application for suspension of operation of the decision of the                extended in a clear and transparent manner. According to the
European Agency for Reconstruction to revoke the applicant’s                  applicant the defendant exceeded its margin of discretion in
contract of employment — the President of the Court of First                  the application of those rules.
Instance has made an order on 25 June 2003, the operative
part of which is as follows:
                                                                              Finally, the applicant submits that there was an infringement
1.    The application for interim relief is dismissed.                        of the duty of care, as well as an infringement of the principle
                                                                              of equal treatment.
2.    Costs are reserved.
                                                                              Lastly, the applicant asserts that the defendant misused its
                                                                              competence. The applicant states that the Netherlands Minister
                                                                              for Home Affairs carried out a security check on the applicant
                                                                              at the defendant’s request. That investigation disclosed nothing
                                                                              adverse against the applicant. However, according to the
                                                                              applicant, the mere fact that a security check was carried out
Action brought on 29 April 2003 by Elisabeth Saskia Smit                      constituted the actual reason for the refusal to extend her
                             v Europol                                        contract.
                          (Case T-143/03)
                          (2003/C 213/72)
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                              Action brought on 30 April 2003 by Jose Maria Sison
                                                                                against the Council of the European Union
An action against Europol was brought before the Court of
                                                                                (Case T-150/03)
First Instance of the European Communities on 29 April 2003
by Elisabeth Saskia Smit, represented by P. de Casparis and
M.F. Baltussen.                                                                                (2003/C 213/73)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                      (Language of the case: English)
(1) annul the rejection by Europol on 25 February 2003
      of the applicant’s complaint against the decision of
      30 September 2002, together with the latter decision;                   An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                              brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
(2) order Europol to extend the applicant’s contract of                       Communities on 30 April 2003 by Jose Maria Sison, Utrecht,
      employment until 1 July 2007 or such other date as the                  the Netherlands, represented by Mr J. Fermon, Mr A. Comte,
      Court may determine;                                                    Mr E. Schultz and Mr D. Gurses, lawyers.
 ---pagebreak--- 6.9.2003                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 213/37
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                (5 ) Council Regulation of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive
                                                                                measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view
                                                                                to combatting terrorism (OJ L 344, of 28.12.2001, p. 70).
                                                                           (6 ) Regulation of the European Parliement and the Council of 30 May
—      annul, on the basis of Article 230 EC, Council Decision
                                                                                2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council
       of 27th February 2003 (06/c/01/03): Answer adopted by                    and Commisson documents (OJ L 145, of 31.5.2001, p. 43).
       the council on the 27th February 2003 to the confirma-
       tory application of M. Jan Fermon sent by fax on the
       3rd February 2002 under Article 7(2) of the Regulation
       (EC) No 1049/2001, notified to the applicant’s counsel
       on 28 February 2003;
—      order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                           Action brought on 15 May 2003 by Eduard Vonier against
                                                                                the Commission of the European Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                      (Case T-165/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 213/74)
The applicant in the present case is the same as in cases T-47/
3 Sison/Council and Commission (1) and T-110/03 Sison/                                         (Language of the Case: German)
Council (2), pursues the annulment of the defendant’s decision
not to get him access to all the documents which were the
basis of the Council Decision 2002/974/CE (3), repealing the
previous Decision 2002/848/EC ( 4), by which the applicant
itself and the New People’s Army (NPA) are included in the list            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
pertinent to Article 2(3), of Regulation 2580/2001 (5).                    ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 15 May 2003 by Eduard Vonier,
                                                                           resident in Amsterdam (Netherlands), represented by
                                                                           W. Schmolke, lawyer.
In support of its conclusions, the applicant submits:
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
—      The infringement of the right of access to documents, as
       forseen in Articles 1(2) EU, 6(1) EU, 255 EC and 4(1)(a),
       4(6) and 9(3) of Regulation 1049/2001 (6).                          —      annul and set aside the decision of the selection board of
                                                                                30 July 2002 not to include him on the list of successful
                                                                                candidates in Competition COM/A/601 for the field of
—      The violation of the principle of sound adminstration, as                  external relations;
       well as the duty to state reasons.
                                                                           —      order the Commission to pay EUR 10 000 in compen-
                                                                                sation for the non-material damage caused to the him;
—      The violation of the general principle of Community Law
       enshrined in Article 6 ECHR and especially of the right to
       be informed promptly, in an understandable language                 —      order the Commission to pay the costs, pursuant to
       and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation.                  Article 87(3) of the Rules of Procedure if appropriate.
( 1) OJ C 101, of 26.4.2003, p. 41.
( 2) Not published in the OJ yet.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
( 3) Council Decision of 12 December 2002 implementing Article 2(3)
     of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures
     directed against certain persons and entities with a view to          Competition COM/A/601 (1) was held in order to recruit
     combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2002/848/EC (OJ
     L 337, of 13.12.2002, p. 85).
                                                                           administrators in the fields of external relations and adminis-
( 4) Council Decision of 28 October 2002 implementing Article 2(3)
                                                                           tration of aid to non-member countries. The applicant, an
     of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures      Austrian national, submitted an application for the field of
     directed against certain persons and entities with a view to          foreign relations. He was successful in the written procedure
     combatting terrorism and repealing Decision 2002/460/EC (OJ           and was admitted to the oral examination. By the contested
     L 295, of 30.10.2002, p. 12).                                         decision he was, however, informed that he could not be


title: Case T-67/14: Action brought on 1 February 2014 — Viraj Profiles v Council

text:
               14.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/48

         Action brought on 1 February 2014 — Viraj Profiles v Council
   (Case T-67/14)
   2014/C 112/61
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Viraj Profiles Ltd (Maharashtra, India) (represented by: V. Akritidis and Y. Melin, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1106/2013 of 5 November 2013 (OJ L 298, p. 1) imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain stainless steel wires originating in India, as far as it applies to Viraj Profiles Limited;

               —

               Order the Council, and any intervener who may be allowed to support the Council in the course of the proceedings, to bear the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the cost of production calculated in the Contested Regulation has been adjusted in a way that is manifestly erroneous, in breach of Article 2(1), (3), (4), (5), (6), (11) and (12) of the basic regulation. The EU institutions have applied an upward adjustment under a methodology which when followed yields an adjustment lower than the one disclosed by the Commission. The adjustment also includes items that should not be included in the cost of production of the Applicant. The dumping margin calculated on the basis of this erroneous methodology breaches Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the finding that the injury suffered by the Union industry is caused by Indian imports is manifestly erroneous, in that it does not consider the impact of Chinese imports, which were the main source of injury in the period considered and broke the causal link between dumped Indian imports and the injury, and the EU institutions performed no non-attribution analysis, in breach of Article 3(6) and (7) of the basic Regulation.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to examine the accuracy and adequacy of the evidence on causation provided in the complaint justifying the initiation of the investigation in breach of Articles 5(2), (3), (7) and 9(5) of the basic Regulation.


title: Case C-432/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Ufficio del Giudice di Pace di Lendinara by order of that Court of 29 October 2002 in the case of Dr Lucio Trombin against Insight World Education Systems Limited

text:
C 19/22                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         25.1.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
The system of quality labels introduced by the Regions of                  Article 10(1) of the Directive, as amended by Council Directive
Abruzzi and Sicily reserves the use of such labels solely to               94/31/EC (2) of 27 June 1994 amending Directive 91/689/EEC
products processed or prepared within those regions which                  on hazardous waste, requires Member States to bring into
comply with mandatory manufacturing rules. The quality of                  force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
the products concerned is therefore explicitly linked to their             necessary to comply with that Directive by 27 June 1995, and
place of origin in Abruzzi or Sicily, which serves to create in            to inform the Commission forthwith. Article 10(3) of the
the mind of the consumer the impression that products from                 Directive provides that Member States shall communicate to
those regions are of a quality superior to that of others. The             the Commission the texts of the main provisions of national
use of that designation tends therefore to encourage consumers             law which they adopt in the field governed by the Directive.
to purchase such products rather than imported products,
stimulating their sale to the detriment of products from other
Member States.                                                             As a result of an assessment of the national legislation
                                                                           communicated, the Commission found the existence of a
                                                                           number of inconsistencies and gaps in the United Kingdom’s
It follows that the system of quality labels introduced by the             transposition. As the United Kingdom authorities have not
Regions of Abruzzi and Sicily constitutes a barrier to intra-              communicated any amending legislation designed to remedy
Community trade contrary to Article 28 EC.                                 the situation, except for a draft concerning Gibraltar which
                                                                           has not yet been adopted, the Commission concludes that the
                                                                           United Kingdom has failed to transpose correctly Articles 1(4),
                                                                           1(5), 2(1), 2(2), 2(4), 3(1), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4), 4(1), 4(2), 4(3), 5(1)
                                                                           and 5(2) of the Directive.
                                                                           (1 ) OJ L 377, 31.12.1991, p. 20.
                                                                           (2 ) OJ L 168, 2.7.1994, p. 28.
Action brought on 29 November 2002 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against the United
                              Kingdom
                         (Case C-431/02)
                                                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Ufficio del
                          (2003/C 19/38)                                   Giudice di Pace di Lendinara by order of that Court of
                                                                           29 October 2002 in the case of Dr Lucio Trombin against
                                                                                Insight World Education Systems Limited
An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the                                         (Case C-432/02)
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 Novem-
ber 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Xavier Lewis and Minas Konstantinidis, acting                                         (2003/C 19/39)
as agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities by order of the Ufficio del Giudice di
1)    declare that, by failing to adopt all the measures necessary         Pace di Lendinara (Office of the Lendinara Magistrate) of
      to comply with its obligations under Articles 1(4), 1(5),            29 October 2002, received at the Court Registry on 29 Novem-
      2(1), 2(2), 2(4), 3(1), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4), 4(1), 4(2), 4(3), 5(1)     ber 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Dr Lucio
      and 5(2) of Council Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous                Trombin against Insight World Education Systems Limited on
      waste ( 1), the United Kingdom of Great Britain and                  the following questions:
      Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      this Directive and under the Treaty establishing the
      European Community;                                                  1.    Are the rules or administrative practices of the national
                                                                                legal order, such as those described at points III and IV
                                                                                hereof, compatible with the principles of the EC Treaty
2)    order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.                                 concerning the free movement of persons (Article 39 et
 ---pagebreak--- 25.1.2003               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 19/23
     seq EC), the right of establishment (Article 43 et seq. EC)                      nationals on the basis of periods of study completed
     and freedom to provide services (Article 49 et seq. EC), as                      with foreign institutions operating in Italy even
     interpreted by the Court of Justice. Of particular relevance                     though they are approved and accredited by the
     in that regard are national rules and/or administrative                          competent public authorities in the Member State to
     practices which:                                                                 which they belong;
                                                                                —    require production of an attestation from the diplo-
     —      impede the Italian establishment of a limited com-                        matic representation — Italian consulate in the
            pany whose principal business is in the United                            foreign country in which the degree was awarded —
            Kingdom from carrying on in the host state the                            proving actual residence in that country by the
            business of organising and administering courses of                       person concerned for the whole period of the
            study for preparation for university examinations,                        university studies;
            for which the company is duly authorised and
            accredited by the United Kingdom public auth-
            orities?                                                             —    limit recognition of degrees ‘solely’ to pursuit of a
                                                                                profession already pursued in the State of origin,
                                                                                thus precluding recognition for the purposes of
                                                                                access to a regulated profession even though not
     —      discriminate as between nationals pursuing the same                       previously exercised.
            activities;
                                                                          3.     What is the meaning and scope of the expression ‘harmful
                                                                                interruption (...) of vocational training’ in Council
     —      prohibit and/or seriously impede the Italian estab-
                                                                                Decision 63/266/EEC (3) and does it cover the creation at
            lishment of that undertaking in obtaining, in another
                                                                                national level by the public authorities of a permanent
            Member State and for valuable consideration, the
                                                                                system of information which evidences that degrees
            services conducive to the pursuit of the abovemen-
                                                                                awarded by a university, even though legally recognised
            tioned activity;
                                                                                in the United Kingdom, cannot be recognised under
                                                                                national legislation if they have been obtained on the
                                                                                basis of periods of study completed in Italy.
     —      discourage students from enrolling in those courses
            of study;
                                                                          (1 ) OJ L 19 of 24.1.1989, p. 16.
                                                                          (2 ) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002, p. 2.
     —      impede the professional training of enrolled students         (3 ) OJ 63 of 20.4.1963, p. 1338 (English special edition...: Series-I
            and the obtaining of an award capable of conferring                (63-64) p. 25).
            on its holder advantages either in securing access to
            a professional activity or in exercising it with greater
            reward in other Member States as well.
2.   On an interpretation — herein requested — of Article 2
     of Council Directive 89/48/EC ( 1), does that directive
     confer rights which may be relied on also before acqui-
     sition of the degree mentioned in Article 1 of the directive
     itself. If the reply to that question is affirmative, does the       Action brought on 29 November 2002 by the Com-
     directive itself, regard also being had to the judgment in           mission of the European Communities against the
     Case C-145/99 Commission v Italian Republic [2001] (2),                                     Kingdom of Belgium
     permit rules or administrative practices in the national
     legal order which:
                                                                                (Case C-433/02)
     —      make recognition of university degrees obtained on
            completion of training of at least three years’                                         (2003/C 19/40)
            duration subject to the discretion of the public
            authorities;
     —      grant recognition in Italy of degrees awarded by              An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
            universities recognised in the United Kingdom only            before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
            if completed after regular attendance for the whole           29 November 2002 by the Commission of the European
            course of studies at those universities, to the               Communities, represented by K. Banks, acting as Agent, with
            exclusion therefore of degrees awarded to Italian             an address for service in Luxembourg.


title: Case C-382/08: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 January 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Oberösterreich (Austria)) — Michael Neukirchinger v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Grieskirchen (Air transport — Licence for the organisation of commercial balloon flights — Article 12 EC — Condition of residence or company seat — Administrative sanctions)

text:
               12.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 January 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Oberösterreich (Austria)) — Michael Neukirchinger v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Grieskirchen
   (Case C-382/08) (1)

   (Air transport - Licence for the organisation of commercial balloon flights - Article 12 EC - Condition of residence or company seat - Administrative sanctions)
   2011/C 80/02
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Oberösterreich

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Michael Neukirchinger

      Defendant: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Grieskirchen

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Oberösterreich — Interpretation of Article 49 et seq. of the EC Treaty — National legislation prohibiting, on pain of administrative criminal penalties, the organisation of commercial balloon flights without a national licence, the issue of which is subject to the condition that the applicant for the licence has a place of residence or registered office within the country

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 12 EC precludes legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, for the organisation of balloon flights in that Member State and subject to administrative sanctions in the event of failure to comply with that legislation,
   requires a person resident or established in another Member State, who is licensed in that second Member State to operate commercial balloon flights, to have a place of residence or company seat in the first Member State, and
   obliges that person to obtain a new licence, without due account being taken of the fact that the conditions of issue are, essentially, the same as those which apply to the licence already issued to that person in the second Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 285, 8.11.2008.


               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/34

         Removal from the register of Case C-450/02 (1)

   (2004/C 228/74)
   By order of 5 May 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-450/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): Finanzamt Kassel-Goethestraße v Qualitair Engineering Services Ltd.

      (1)  OJ C 70 of 22.3.2003.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 October 2001 in Case C-189/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Trier): Urszula Ruhr v Bundesanstalt für Arbeit (Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Nationals of non-member countries — Members of a worker's family — Rights acquired directly and rights derived through others — Unemployment benefit)

text:
C 348/8                   EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          8.12.2001
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,          to comply with Commission Directive 97/65/EC of 26 Novem-
      all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary          ber 1997 adapting, for the third time, to technical progress
      to comply with Commission Directive 97/59/EC of 7 October                  Council Directive 90/679/EEC on the protection of workers
      1997 adapting to technical progress Council Directive                      from risks related to exposure to biological agents at work, the
      90/679/EEC on the protection of workers from risks related to              Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      exposure to biological agents at work (seventh individual                  Article 2(1) of that Directive;
      Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive
      89/391/EEC), the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its        2.    Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
      obligations under Article 2(1) of that Directive;
2.    Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.                     (1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.
(1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (First Chamber)
                          (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                                of 25 October 2001
                         of 11 October 2001
                                                                           in Case C-189/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
In Case C-111/00: Commission of the European Com-                          the Sozialgericht Trier): Urszula Ruhr v Bundesanstalt für
                munities v Republic of Austria (1)                                                        Arbeit (1)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                     (Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Nationals of non-member
                         Directive 97/65/EC)                               countries — Members of a worker’s family — Rights
                                                                           acquired directly and rights derived through others —
                                                                                Unemployment benefit)
                            (2001/C 348/13)
                                                                                (2001/C 348/14)
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-111/00: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: N. Yerrell and C. Ladenburger) v Republic of Austria
(Agent: C. Pesendorfer) — application for a declaration that,
                                                                           In Case C-189/00: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
by failing to adopt and/or notify to the Commission the laws,
                                                                           the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Sozialgericht
regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply
                                                                           (Social Court) Trier (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the
with Commission Directive 97/65/EC of 26 November 1997
                                                                           proceedings pending before that court between Urszula Ruhr
adapting, for the third time, to technical progress Council
                                                                           v Bundesanstalt für Arbeit — on the interpretation of
Directive 90/679/EEC on the protection of workers from risks
                                                                           Article 2(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of
related to exposure to biological agents at work, (OJ 1997
                                                                           14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to
L 335, p. 17), the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its
                                                                           employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members
obligations under Article 2(1) of that Directive — the Court
                                                                           of their families moving within the Community, in the version
(Fourth Chamber), composed of: S. von Bahr, President of the
                                                                           amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97
Chamber, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur) and C.W.A. Timmer-
                                                                           of 2 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1), as amended by
mans, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass,
                                                                           Council Regulation (EC) No 307/1999 of 8 February 1999 (OJ
Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 October 2001, in which
                                                                           1999 L 38, p. 1) — the Court (First Chamber), composed of:
it:
                                                                           P. Jann, President of the Chamber, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet
                                                                           (Rapporteur), Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass,
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,    Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 October 2001, in which
      all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary    it has ruled:
 ---pagebreak--- 8.12.2001                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 348/9
The interpretation given by the Court of Justice in Case 40/76             Article 68(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June
Kermaschek continues to hold good in relation to Article 2(1), in          1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed
conjunction with Articles 67 to 71a, of Regulation (EEC)                   persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families
No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of            moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council
social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons      Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, read in
and to members of their families moving within the Community, in           conjunction with Article 1(f)(i) thereof, precludes national rules, such
the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC)                 as those at issue in the main proceedings, under which receipt of a
No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Council Regulation             higher rate of unemployment benefit is conditional on the unemployed
(EC) No 307/1999 of 8 February 1999.                                       person living together with the members of his family in the territory
                                                                           of the competent Member State.
(1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 211 of 22.7.2000.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Third Chamber)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                        of 16 October 2001
                                                                                of 25 October 2001
in Case C-212/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal du travail de Mons): Salvatore Stallone v
             Office national de l’emploi (ONEM) (1)                        in Case C-460/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Hellenic Republic (1)
(Social security for migrant workers — Regulation (EEC)
No 1408/71 — Unemployment benefit — Condition of                           (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
  living together with the dependent members of the family)                Directive 96/48/EC — Interoperability of the trans-Euro-
                                                                                pean high-speed rail system)
                           (2001/C 348/15)
                                                                                (2001/C 348/16)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-212/00: reference to the Court under Article 234
EC from the Tribunal du travail de Mons (Labour Court, Mons)
(Belgium) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending              In Case C-460/00: Commission of the European Communities
before that court between Salvatore Stallone and Office                    (Agents: M. Wolfcarius and M. Patakia) v Hellenic Republic
national de l’emploi (ONEM) — on the interpretation of                     (Agents: N. Dafniou and S. Chala) — application for a
Articles 1(f)(i) and 68(2) of Council Regulation (EEC)                     declaration that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and
No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social                    administrative provisions necessary to comply fully with
security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed                     Council Directive 96/48/EC of 23 July 1996 on the interop-
persons and to members of their families moving within the                 erability of the trans-European high-speed rail system (OJ
Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation                    1996 L 235, p. 6), or, alternatively, by not communicating
(EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1)                     them to the Commission, within the prescribed period, the
— the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann                       Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
(Rapporteur), acting for the President of the Third Chamber,               EC Treaty — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La
J.-P. Puissochet and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; A. Tizzano,             Pergola, President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, L. Sevón
Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of Division,                   (Rapporteur) S. von Bahr and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges;
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 October 2001,                L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given
in which it has ruled:                                                     a judgment on 25 October 2001, in which it:


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 16 July 1998 in Case C-136/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Paris): The Scotch Whisky Association v. Compagnie Financière Européenne de Prises de Participation (Cofepp), Prisunic SA and Centrale d'Achats et de Services Alimentaires SARL (Casal) (Definition, description and presentation of spirit drinks - Regulation (EEC) No 1576/89 - Conditions for the use of the generic term 'whisky' - Drinks consisting entirely of whisky and water)

text:
C 299/6               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      26.9.98
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       (Sixth Chamber)                                                       (Fifth Chamber)
                        of 16 July 1998                                                       of 16 July 1998
in Case C-235/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from            in Case C-136/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Cour d'Appel, Douai): AGS Assedic Pas-de-Calais v.               the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Paris): The Scotch
FrancËois Dumon and Maître Froment, liquidator and                   Whisky Association v. Compagnie FinancieÁre EuropeÂenne
      representative of EÂtablissements Pierre Gilson (1)            de Prises de Participation (Cofepp), Prisunic SA and
                                                                     Centrale d'Achats et de Services Alimentaires SARL
(Social policy Ð Protection of employees in the event of                                         (Casal) (1)
the insolvency of their employer Ð Directive 80/987/EEC
Ð Article 4 Ð Direct effect Ð Whether national                       (Definition, description and presentation of spirit drinks
provisions fixing the ceiling for the guarantee of payment           Ð Regulation (EEC) No 1576/89 Ð Conditions for the
may be relied on against individuals where the                       use of the generic term whisky' Ð Drinks consisting
            Commission has not been informed)                                         entirely of whisky and water)
                         (98/C 299/09)                                                         (98/C 299/10)
                (Language of the case: French)                                       (Language of the case: French)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
         published in the European Court Reports)                             published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-235/95: reference to the Court under Article 177           In Case C-136/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty by the Cour d'Appel (Court of Appeal),              of the EC Treaty by the Tribunal de Grande Instance,
Douai (France), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings          Paris, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
pending before that court between AGS Assedic Pas-de-                before that court between The Scotch Whisky Association
Calais and FrancËois Dumon and Maître Froment,                       and Compagnie FinancieÁre EuropeÂenne de Prises de
liquidator and representative of EÂtablissements Pierre              Participation (Cofepp), Prisunic SA and Centrale d'Achats
Gilson, on the interpretation of Council Directive 80/987/           et de Services Alimentaires SARL (Casal), on the
EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the                   interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1576/89 of
laws of the Member States relating to the protection of              29 May 1989 laying down general rules on the definition,
employees in the event of the insolvency of their                    description and presentation of spirit drinks (2) Ð the
employer (2) Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:               Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann,
H. Ragnemalm, President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini                President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), J. C.
(Rapporteur) and J. L. Murray, Judges; Advocate General;             Moitinho de Almeida, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges;
G. Cosmas, R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on              Advocate General: J. Mischo, Registrar H. A. Rühl,
16 July 1998, the operative part of which is as follows:             Principal Administrator, has given a judgment on 16 July
                                                                     1998, the operative part of which is as follows.
Articles 4(3) and 11 of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of
20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the              Article 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1576/89 of
Member States relating to the protection of employees in             29 May 1989 laying down general rules on the definition,
the event of the insolvency of their employer do not                 description and presentation of spirit drinks prohibits the
preclude the application of provisions setting a ceiling on          inclusion of the generic term whisky' in the sales
the payment guarantee in respect of employees'                       description of a spirit drink containing whisky diluted
outstanding claims, where the Member State has failed to             with water, with an alcoholic strength by volume of less
inform the Commission of the methods used to set that                than 40 %, or the addition of the term whisky' to the
ceiling.                                                             description spirit' or spirit drink' applied to such a drink.
(1) OJ C 229, 2.9.1995.                                              (1) OJ C 180, 22.6.1996.
(2) OJ L 283, 20.10.1980, p. 23.                                     (2) OJ L 160, 12.6.1989, p. 1.


title: Action brought on 2 July 1995 by Giorgio Bernardi against the European Parliament (Case C-228/95)

text:
No C 268/10           PEN ]                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    14 . 10 . 95
 ( OJ No L 139, p . 19 ), and Council Directive 92/31/EEC               1 . declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
amending Directive 89/336/EEC ( OJ No L 126, p. 11 ),                       period the laws, regulations and administrative
Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12(1 )           measures needed to comply with Council Directive
and Article 2 ( 1 ) of the abovementioned directives and                    91 /263/EEC of 29 April 1991 on the approximation of
Article 189 of the EC Treaty — the Courth ( Fifth Chamber),                 the laws of the Member States concerning
composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, P.                       telecommunications terminal equipment, including the
Jann, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, D. A. O. Edward and L.                     mutual recognition of their conformity, the Hellenic
Sévon ( Rapporteur ), Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate-General;                  Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
R. Grass , for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                       Treaty;
 11 August 1995 , in which it:
                                                                       2 , orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
 1 . declares that, by omitting to bring into force the laws,          (') OJ No C 316 , 12 . 11 . 1994 .
     regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
     comply with Council Directive 89/336/EEC of 3 May
     1989 on the approximation of the laws of the Member
     States relating to electromagnetic compatibility and
     Council Directive 92/31 /EEC of 28 April 1992
     amending Directive 89/336/EEC, Ireland has failed to             Action brought on 2 July 1995 by Giorgio Bernardi against
     fulfil its obligations under Article 12 (1 ) and Article 2 (1 )                     the European Parliament
     of the abovementioned directives and Article 1 89 of the                                 ( Case C-228/95 )
     EC Treaty;
                                                                                ( 95/C 268/21 )
2 , orders Ireland to pay the costs.
                                                                      An action against the European Parliament was brought
                                                                       before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
(') OJ No C 288 , 15 . 10 . 1994 .                                    2 July 1995 by Giorgio Bernardi, represented by Giancarlo
                                                                      Lattanzi, of the Massa-Carrara Bar ( Italy ), with an address
                                                                      for service in Luxembourg at 33 Rue Godchaux .
                                                                      The applicant claims inter alia that the Court should annul
                                                                      the notice entitled ' Call for nominations for the office of
                                                                      Ombudsman' ( ! ), and all acts connected with it or adopted
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                as a consequence .
                         ( Sixth Chamber)
                        of 11 August 1995                             By order of 1 1 July 1995, pursuant to Article 47 of the EC
                                                                      Statute of the Court of Justice, the Court referred that action
in Case C-260/94 : Commission of the European                         to the Court of First Instance .
              Communities v. Hellenic Republic ( 1 )
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be           C ) OJ No C 127, 23 . 5 . 1995 , p . 4 .
          published in the European Court Reports)
                           ( 95/C 268/20 )
                  (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Diikitiko
                                                                      Protodikio (Administrative Court of First Instance ), Athens,
In Case C-260/94: Commission of the European                          by a decision of that court of 24 May 1995 in the case of P.
Communities ( agents : Dimitrios Gouloussis and Anders                Moskof v. Ethnikos Organismos Kapnou (National
Christian Jessen ) v. Hellenic Republic (agents : Panagiotis                                  Tobacco Board )
Mylonopoulos and Ioanna Kiki ) — application for a
                                                                                ( Case C-244/95 )
declaration that, by failing to adopt, and alternatively by
failing to notify to the Commission, within the periods                                            95/C 268/22 )
prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative
measures needed to comply with Council Directive                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
91 /263/EEC of 29 April 1991 on the approximation of the              European Communities by a decision of the Administrative
laws of the Member States concerning telecommunications               Court of First Instance, Athens, of 24 March 1995 , which
terminal equipment, including the mutual recognition of               was received at the Court Registry on 12 July 1995 , for a
their conformity ( OJ No L 128 , p. 1 ), the Hellenic Republic        preliminary ruling in the case of P. Moskof A. E. v. Ethnikos
has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty —            Organismos Kapnou on the validity of Commission
Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: F. A. Schockweiler,             Regulation ( EEC ) No 3477/93 ( x ) inasmuch as it concerns
President of the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn, G. F. Mancini             the agricultural conversion rates to be applied to the
( Rapporteur ), C. N. Kakouris and G. Hirsch, Judges; C. O.           premium for tobacco from the 1992 and previous harvests
Lenz, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a              which was taken out of supervision from 1 July 1993 and
judgment on 11 August 1995 , the operative part of which is           subsequently. Doubt is cast on the validity of Regulation
as follows :                                                           ( EEC ) No 3477/93 on the following grounds :


title: Case C-454/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland (United Kingdom) lodged on 16 October 2008 — Seaport Investments Ltd v Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/17

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland (United Kingdom) lodged on 16 October 2008 — Seaport Investments Ltd v Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland
   (Case C-454/08)
   2009/C 220/30
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Seaport Investments Ltd

      Defendant: Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland
   By order of 20 May 2009, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) declared the reference for a preliminary ruling inadmissible.


title: Case C-375/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Republic of Poland), lodged on 23 September 2009 — Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów v Tele2 Polska sp. z o.o., now Netia S.A.

text:
               5.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Republic of Poland), lodged on 23 September 2009 — Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów v Tele2 Polska sp. z o.o., now Netia S.A.
   (Case C-375/09)
   2009/C 297/25
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Sąd Najwyższy

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów

      Respondent: Tele2 Polska sp. z o.o., now Netia S.A.

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 5 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) to be interpreted as meaning that a national competition authority cannot take a decision stating that a practice does not restrict competition within the meaning of Article 82 EC in a case in which it has found, after conducting proceedings, that the undertaking did not breach the prohibition of abuse of a dominant position under that Treaty provision?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative: in a situation in which, under national competition law — if it should be established that the practice of an undertaking does not infringe the prohibition in Article 82 EC — a national competition authority may bring cartel proceedings to an end only by taking a decision which states that the practice does not restrict competition, is the third sentence of Article 5 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 to be interpreted as constituting a direct legal basis for that authority to ‘decide that there are no grounds for action on [its] part’?

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1.


title: Case T-863/16: Order of the General Court of 29 May 2017 — Le Pen v Parliament (Action for annulment — Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament — Parliamentary assistance allowance — Recovery of sums unduly paid — Manifest inadmissibility in part — No need to adjudicate in part)

text:
               14.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/23

         Order of the General Court of 29 May 2017 — Le Pen v Parliament
   (Case T-863/16) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament - Parliamentary assistance allowance - Recovery of sums unduly paid - Manifest inadmissibility in part - No need to adjudicate in part))
   (2017/C 269/34)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Jean-Marie Le Pen (Saint-Cloud, France) (represented by: M. Ceccaldi and J.-P. Le Moigne, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: S. Seyr and G. Corstens, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Secretary-General of the Parliament of 29 January 2016 relating to the recovery from the applicant of a sum of EUR 320 026,23 unduly paid for parliamentary assistance, the debit note of 4 February 2016 relating thereto, and the decision of the Quaestors of 4 October 2016 rejecting the applicant’s complaint against the decision of 29 January 2016.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible in so far as it concerns the claim for annulment of the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 29 January 2016 relating to the recovery from Mr Jean-Marie Le Pen of a sum of EUR 320 026,23 unduly paid for parliamentary assistance and of the debit note of 4 February 2016 relating thereto, and in so far as it concerns the claim that the Parliament should be ordered to pay the applicant EUR 50 000 by way of compensation for the recoverable costs.

               2.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action in so far as it concerns the claim for annulment of the decision of the Quaestors of 4 October 2016 rejecting the applicant’s complaint against the decision of 29 January 2016.

               3.

               The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 38, 6.2.2017.


title: Case C-126/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura Circondariale di Torino by order of 30 March 1999 in the case of Roberto Vitari v European Training Foundation

text:
C 204/22                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        17.7.1999
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                     ‘Must Article 79 of Regulation (EEC) No 259/68 (1), as
                                                                           subsequently amended, where it provides that: … the con-
                         of 21 April 1999                                  ditions of employment of local staff, in particular:
in Joined Cases C-28/98 and C-29/98 (references for a                      (a) the manner of their engagement and termination of their
preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance                         contract,
de Thionville): Marc Charreire (Case C-28/98), Jean Hirts-
mann (Case C-29/98) v Directeur des Services Fiscaux de                    (b) their leave, and
                            la Moselle (1)
                                                                           (c) their remuneration
   (References for a preliminary ruling — Inadmissibility)
                                                                           shall be determined by each institution in accordance with
                          (1999/C 204/42)                                  current rules and practice in the place where they are to
                                                                           perform their duties, be construed as meaning that the
                                                                           European institution is permitted to dispense with national
                    (Language of the case: French)                         legislation, with the consequence that rules of Community
                                                                           origin are alone applicable, or does it, in contrast, impose
                                                                           compliance with national legislation, particulary if that
(Provisional translation: the definitive translation will be published     national legislation is mandatory and binding in nature?’
                   in the European Court Reports)
In Joined Cases C-28/98 and C-29/98: two references to the                 (1) Council Regulation of 29.2.1968, OJ English Special Edition 1968
Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal de                  (I), p. 30.
Grande Instance de Thionville (France) for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings pending before that court between Marc
Charreire (Case C-28/98), Jean Hirtsmann (Case C-29/98)
and Directeur des Services Fiscaux de la Moselle on the
interpretation of Article 95 of the EC Treaty — the Court,
composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P.J.G. Kap-
teyn, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann, Presidents of
Chambers, G.F. Mancini, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gul-
mann. J.L. Murray, D.A.O. Edward, H. Ragnemalm, L. Sevón
and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur) Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 21 April                Action brought on 14 April 1999 by the Commission of
1999, the operative part of which is as follows:                             the European Communities against the Italian Republic
The references for a preliminary ruling made by the Tribunal de                                     (Case C-127/99)
Grande Instance de Thionville, by judgments of 21 March 1997, are
inadmissible.
                                                                                (1999/C 204/44)
(1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.
                                                                           An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
                                                                           Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 April
                                                                           1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                           represented by Paolo Stancanelli, 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.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura Circon-                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
dariale di Torino by order of 30 March 1999 in the case
    of Roberto Vitari v European Training Foundation
                                                                           — declare that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                                obligations under Community law by failing to establish
                          (Case C-126/99)                                       one or more action programmes of the type and under the
                                                                                conditions provided for in Article 5 of Council Directive
                          (1999/C 204/43)                                       91/676/EEC (1) of 12 December 1991 concerning the
                                                                                protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates
                                                                                from agricultural sources; by failing to carry out the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          monitoring measures provided for in Article 6 of that
European Communities by order of 30 March 1999 from the                         directive; and by failing to draw up and submit a full report
Pretura Circondariale di Torino (District Magistrate’s Court,                   as required by Article 10 of that directive,
Turin), which was received at the Court Registry on 14 April
1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Roberto Vitari v
European Training Foundation on the following question:                    — order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.


title: Case T-341/17: Action brought on 31 May 2017 — British Airways v Commission

text:
               24.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/62

         Action brought on 31 May 2017 — British Airways v Commission
   (Case T-341/17)
   (2017/C 239/74)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: British Airways plc (Harmondsworth, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Turner, QC, R. O’Donoghue, Barrister and A. Lyle-Smythe, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Decision C(2017) 1742 final of 17 March 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case AT.39258 — Airfreight) in whole or in part;

               —

               further or alternatively, and in the exercise of the General Court’s unlimited jurisdiction, annul or reduce the fine imposed on the applicant under the contested decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law, and/or infringed an essential procedural requirement by adopting an infringement decision which was based on two inconsistent assessments of the relevant facts and law, and which was accordingly incoherent, incompatible with the principle of legal certainty, and liable to give rise to confusion within the EU legal order.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission acted in breach of its duty under Article 266 TFEU by adopting a measure intended to address the fundamental errors identified by the General Court judgment in Case T-48/11, when re-adopting the decision against the applicant, but which compounded rather than remedied those errors.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law and/or breached an essential procedural requirement by failing to state adequate reasons in respect of the imposition of the fine against the applicant. According to the applicant, the imposition of the fine was based on findings of infringement not contained in the measure in question, and which were inconsistent with the findings that were contained in the measure in question. The applicant further or alternatively puts forward that the Commission’s approach in this regard was beyond its competence.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission lacked jurisdiction to apply Article 101 TFEU/Article 53 EEA Agreement to alleged restrictions of competition in respect of the provision of airfreight services on routes inbound into the EU/EEA. The applicant further puts forward that such restrictions fell outside the territorial scope of Article 101 TFEU and/or Article 53 EEA.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in its application of Article 101 TFEU/Article 53 EEA Agreement to coordination on surcharges for air freight services to/from certain countries due to the applicable legal and regulatory regimes and their practical effects, and the fine reduction applied in this respect was arbitrary and inadequate. The applicant further puts forward that in any case, as respects certain jurisdictions the Commission’s reasoning is manifestly inadequate.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in concluding that the applicant participated in an infringement concerning the (non)payment of commission of surcharges.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in determining the ‘value of sales’ for the purpose of setting fines in the decision. According to the applicant, it should have determined that only revenue associated with surcharges was relevant and should have excluded turnover associated with services inbound into the EU/EEA.

               8.

               Eighth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in finding that the applicant was the ninth leniency applicant and therefore was entitled to only a 10 % reduction in its fine, despite the applicant in fact being the first to apply for leniency after the immunity applicant, and to have added significant value.

               9.

               Ninth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in its assessment of the starting date of the applicant’s infringement. According to the applicant, the relevant starting date was October 2001, and the evidence put forward to attempt to prove a different earlier date does not satisfy the requisite legal standard.