title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 23 May 1996 in Case C-237/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Social Security Commissioner): John O'Flynn v. Adjudication Officer (Social advantages for workers - Funeral payment)

text:
6 . 7. 96           LEN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 197/7
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                         laws must not be less favourable than those relating to
                       of 23 May 1996                                       similar domestic claims or framed in such a way as in
                                                                            practice to make it impossible or excessively difficult to
in Case C-5/94 ( request for a preliminary ruling from the                  obtain reparation.
High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division ): The Queen
v. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte:
                Hedley Lomas (Ireland ) Ltd (^                      f 1 ) OJ No C 59 , 26 . 2 . 1994 .
(Free movement of goods — Protection of animals —
Harmonizing Directive — Article 36 of the EC Treaty —
Non-contractual liability of a Member State for breach of
                       Community law)
                         ( 96/C 197/11 )
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber )
                                                                                of 23 May 1996
In Case C-5/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                                                                    in Case C-237/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
the EC Treaty by the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench           the Social Security Commissioner ): John O'Flynn v.
Division ( England and Wales ), for a preliminary ruling in                               Adjudication Officer ^)
the proceedings pending before that court between The
Queen and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex                  (Social advantages for workers — Funeral payment)
parte: Hedley Lomas ( Ireland ) Ltd , on the interpretation of                                  ( 96/C 197/12 )
Articles 34 and 36 of the EC Treaty and the principle of
non-contractual State liability for breach of Community
law, the Court, composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias,                                 (Language of the case: English)
President, C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O. Edward and G. Hirsch
(Presidents of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini ( Rapporteur), F. A.
Schockweiler, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn,
                                                                    In Case C-237/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
J. L. Murray, H. Ragnemalm and L. Sevôn, Judges; P. Léger,
Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal                    of the EC Treaty from the Social Security Commissioner
Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on                (United Kingdom ) for a preliminary ruling in the
23 May 1996, the operative part of which is as follows :            proceedings pending before him between John O'Flynn and
                                                                    Adjudication Officer on the interpretation of Article 7 of
                                                                    Regulation ( EEC ) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October
                                                                    1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the
                                                                    Community ( OJ, English Special Edition 1968 ( II ), p . 475 )
1 . Community law precludes a Member State from                     — the Court ( Fifth Chamber), composed of D. A. O.
     invoking Article 36 of the EC Treaty to justify a              Edward, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet
     limitation of exports ofgoods to another Member State          ( Rapporteur ), P. Jann, L. Sevôn and M. Wathelet, Judges;
     on the sole ground that, according to the first State, the     C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy
     second State is not complying with the requirements ofa        Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 May 1996 , in which it
     Community harmonizing Directive which pursues the              rules :
     objective which Article 36 is intended to protect but
     does not lay down either any procedure for monitoring
     their application or any penalties in the event of their       Article 7 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the
     breach:
                                                                     Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for
                                                                     workers within the Community precludes a provision such
                                                                    as that in Regulation 7 (1 ) (c) of the Social Fund (maternity
 2 , a Member State has an obligation to make reparation for         and funeral expenses) Regulations 1 987 which makes grant
     the damage caused to an individual by a refusal to issue        of a payment to cover funeral expenses incurred by a
     an export licence in breach of Article 34 of the Treaty         migrant worker subject to the condition that burial or
     where the rule of Community law infringed is intended           cremation take place within the territory of the Member
     to confer rights on individuals, the breach is sufficiently     State whose legislation provides for that payment.
     serious and there is a direct causal link between the
      breach and the damage sustained by the individuals.
     Subject to that reservation, the State must make good           t 1 ) OJ No C 288 , 15 . 10 . 1994 .
      the consequences of the loss or damage caused by a
      breach of Community law attributable to it, in
     accordance with its domestic law on liability. However,
      the conditions laid down by the applicable domestic


title: Case T-472/07: Action brought on 21 December 2007 — Enercon v OHIM — Hasbro (ENERCON)

text:
               29.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/28

         Action brought on 21 December 2007 — Enercon v OHIM — Hasbro (ENERCON)
   (Case T-472/07)
   (2008/C 79/55)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Enercon GmbH (Aurich, Germany) (represented by: R. Böhm, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hasbro Inc. (Pawtucket, United States)
   Form of order sought

               —

               That the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 October 2007 in Case R 959/2006-4 be annulled insofar as it dismissed the appeal of Enercon GmbH against the decision of the opposition division of 26 May 2006 ruling on opposition No B 763 666;

               —

               that the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) is to be ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The Community word mark ‘ENERCON’ for goods in Classes 16, 18, 24, 25, 28 and 32 — Application No 3 326 031

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Hasbro Inc.

      Mark or sign cited: The Community word mark ‘TRANSFORMERS ENERGON’ for goods in classes 16, 18, 24, 25, 28, 30 and 32 — Application No 3 152 121 as well as the earlier non-registered marks ‘TRANSFORMERS ENERGON’ and ‘ENERGON’

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation (EC) No 40/94.


title: Case T-293/13: Action brought on 24 May 2013 — Theophilou v Commission and ECB

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/18

         Action brought on 24 May 2013 — Theophilou v Commission and ECB
   (Case T-293/13)
   (2013/C 226/25)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Christos Theophilou (Nicosia, Cyprus); and Eleni Theophilou (Nicosia) (represented by: C. Paschalides, Solicitor, and A. Paschalides, lawyer)

      Defendants: European Central Bank and European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Order compensation in the sum of EUR 1 583 479,00 on the basis that the conditions required under the Memorandum of Understanding of 26 April 2013 between Cyprus and the Defendants at paragraphs 1.23 to 1.27 were pregnant with requirements in flagrant violation of a superior law for the protection of the individual, namely: article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention of Human Rights;

               —

               Declare the relevant conditions void and order an urgent review of the financial assistance instruments under article 14 to 18 of the Treaty establishing the European Stability Mechanism (‘ESM Treaty’) pursuant to Article 19 in light of the court’s judgment with a view to changes in order to comply with the judgment of the court; and

               —

               To the extent that compensation under the first head of claim does not cater for the fact that the relevant conditions would stand annulled, an order for compensation for breach of article 263 TFEU.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the relevant conditions in the Memorandum of Understanding were pregnant with requirements that were ‘in flagrant violation of a superior rule of law for the protection of the individual’ (1) because:

                           —

                           The said rule of law is superior because it is a law contained the Charter and the ECHR;

                           —

                           By Article 51(1) of the Charter and 6.2 TEU the defendants are obliged to respect and uphold fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter and the ECHR; and

                           —

                           Bank deposits are property within the meaning of the said article 17 of the Charter and article 1 of Protocol 1 of the ECHR.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the violations below taken together were so extensive as to amount to a flagrant violation of a superior law, as follows:

                           —

                           At the time the applicants were deprived of their bank deposits there were no ‘conditions provided for by law’ in place in the acquis dealing with deprivation of bank deposits contrary to the Charter and Protocol;

                           —

                           The applicants were deprived of their deposits without ‘fair compensation being paid in good time’ contrary to article 17 of the Charter and article 1 of the Protocol;

                           —

                           Deprivation of deposits is prima facie unlawful unless ‘subject to the principle of proportionality… it is necessary and genuinely meets objectives of general interest recognised by the EU or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others.’ (2);

                           —

                           The competing public interest in preventing panic and a run on the banking system, short and medium term, was not considered in evaluating the public interest under Article 17 of the Charter and Article 1 of the Protocol;

                           —

                           The aim was not to damage or penalise Cyprus but to benefit it and the euro area by providing stability support and thereby alleviating not destabilising its financial institutions and economic viability; and

                           —

                           There was no relationship of proportionality of the interference to a legitimate aim since by Article 3 of the ESM Treaty 2012 the genuine objective was ‘to mobilise funding and provide stability support under strict conditionality… to the benefit of ESM Members which are experiencing or are threatened by severe financial problems, if indispensable to safeguard the euro area as a whole and of its member state’ without paralysing its economy.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that deprivation of the applicants’ deposits was not necessary or proportionate.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that in the result the defendants caused the applicants to be deprived of their bank deposits because, but for the flagrant infringement, the applicants’ bank deposits would have been protected by their rights under the Charter and Protocol with the result that the applicants’ loss was sufficiently direct and foreseeable.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that if the above submissions are well founded the relevant conditions fall to be declared void notwithstanding the relevant conditions were addressed to Cyprus, since they are of direct and individual concern to each of the applicants on the grounds that the relevant conditions and the manner of their implementation infringe the Treaty and/or a rule of law relating to its application and/or, to the extent that it is held that depriving the applicants’ bank deposit undermined the rule of law contrary to Article 6.1 of the TEU, were a misuse of powers.

      (1)  See the judgment of 2 December 1971 in Case 5/71 Zuckerfabrik Schoeppenstedt v Council (1971) ECR 975

      (2)  Article 52(1) of the Charter


title: Case T-323/16: Action brought on 24 June 2016 — Banco Cooperativo Español v SRB

text:
               16.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/30

         Action brought on 24 June 2016 — Banco Cooperativo Español v SRB
   (Case T-323/16)
   (2016/C 296/39)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Banco Cooperativo Español, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: D. Sarmiento Ramirez-Escudero, lawyer)

      Defendant: Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               declare inapplicable Article 5(1) of Delegated Regulation 2015/63, and

               —

               annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board, addressed to Banco Cooperativo Español, regarding the settlement of the ex ante contribution corresponding to the financial year 2016.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present action, the applicant challenges the decision regarding the ex ante contribution to the Single Resolution Fund corresponding to the financial year 2016, adopted by the Single Resolution Board and notified through the Spanish Executive Resolution Authority (Autoridad de Resolución Ejecutiva española, ‘FROB’) on 26 April 2016 in accordance with Article 6 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/81 of 19 December 2014 specifying uniform conditions of application of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (OJ 2015 L 15, p. 1).
   In support of its action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

               1.

               The first plea in law is based, pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, on a plea of illegality, and is seeking that the General Court declare inapplicable Article 5(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 of 21 October 2014 supplementing Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ex ante contributions to resolution financing arrangements (OJ 2015 L 11, p. 44). It is claimed, in this regard, that Article 5(1) of the Delegated Regulation:

                           —

                           infringes Article 103(7) of Directive 2014/59, in that it establishes a system of calculation that imposes on an institution with a conservative risk profile an ex ante contribution of an institution with a very high risk profile;

                           —

                           infringes Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in that it unjustifiably restricts the applicant’s fundamental right of freedom to conduct a business;

                           —

                           infringes the principle of proportionality, in failing to take into consideration the double counting of certain of the applicant’s liabilities, thereby generating a manifestly unjustifiable unnecessary and disproportionate restriction.

               2.

               The second plea in law alleges infringement of the second subparagraph of Article 103(2) of Directive 2014/59 and Article 70 of Regulation No 806/2014, interpreted in the light of Article 16 of the Charter and of the principle of proportionality.

         It is claimed, in this regard, that the reasons justifying the inapplicability of Article 5(1) of Delegated Regulation 2015/63 clearly show that it is necessary to adjust the applicant’s risk profile to the operative singularity of the cooperative network it leads, as the abovementioned provisions require. Consequently, and to that extent, the contested decision, the content of which corresponds to a strict and literal application of a rule that takes no account of the applicant’s risk profile, must be regarded as contrary to the second subparagraph of Article 103(2) of Directive 2014/59 and, in particular, Regulation No 806/2014, Article 70 of which, relating to ex ante contributions, refers to the provisions of Directive 2014/59 and to its implementing legislation.


title: Case C-364/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 28 July 2014  — Annette Lorch, Kurt Lorch v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

text:
               29.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 339/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 28 July 2014 — Annette Lorch, Kurt Lorch v Condor Flugdienst GmbH
   (Case C-364/14)
   2014/C 339/17
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Annette Lorch, Kurt Lorch

      Defendant: Condor Flugdienst GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 (1) relate directly to the booked flight?

               2.

               If the first question is to be answered in the negative, how many earlier flights involving the aircraft to be used for the scheduled flight are relevant to the existence of an extraordinary circumstance? Is there a time-limit to the consideration of extraordinary circumstances which occur during earlier flights? If so, how is that time-limit to be calculated?

               3.

               If extraordinary circumstances which occur during earlier flights are also relevant to a later flight, must the reasonable measures to be taken by the operating air carrier, in accordance with Article 5(3) of the regulation, relate only to preventing the extraordinary circumstance or also to avoiding a long delay?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).


C 121/14              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     1.5.1999
References for a preliminary ruling from the Verwal-                          Removal from the register of Case C-289/98 (1)
tungsgericht Frankfurt am Main by orders of that court of
23 February 1999 in the cases of Ernst-Otto Flemmer,                                           (1999/C 121/27)
Renate Christoffel and Marike Leitensdorfer v. Council of
the European Union and Commission of the European                      By order of 16 December 1998 the president of the Court of
Communities represented by Bundesanstalt Für                           Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                Forstwirtschaft und Ernährung                          from the register of Case C-289/98: Commission of the
                                                                       European Communities v. Hellenic Republic.
            (Cases C-80/99, C-81/99 and C-82/99)
                                                                       (1) OJ C 278, 5.9.1998.
                        (1999/C 121/26)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by orders of the First Chamber of the
Verwaltungsgericht (Administrative Court) Frankfurt am Main
of 23 February 1999, which were received at the Court
Registry on 4 March 1999, for preliminary rulings in the cases                Removal from the register of Case C-197/97 (1)
of 1. Ernst Otto Flemmer, 2. Renate Christoffel 3. And
Marike Leitensdorfer v. Council of the European Union and                                      (1999/C 121/28)
Commission of the European Communities represented by
Bundesanstalt für Forstwirtschaft und Ernährung on the fol-            By order of 27 January 1999 the president of the Court of
lowing questions:                                                      Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                       from the register of Case C-197/97 (reference for a preliminary
a) Is the second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty in          ruling from the Liverpool Industrial Tribunal): Donna Marie
    conjunction with Article 178 of the EC Treaty in conjunc-          Davies v. Girobank plc.
    tion with the provisions of Council Regulation (EEC) No
    2187/93 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the Court of         (1) OJ C 212, 12.7.1997.
    Justice also has jurisdiction in disputes which derive from
    a contract concluded by the competent national authority
    in the name and on behalf of the Council and Commission
    in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 2187/93
    providing for an offer of compensation to certain pro-
    ducers of milk and milk products temporarily prevented
    from carrying on their trade?
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-24/98 (1)
b) If that question is answered in the negative and if there is a
    case falling within the first paragraph of Article 215 of the                              (1999/C 121/29)
    EC Treaty and if the national courts thus have jurisdiction
    under Article 183 of the EC Treaty, the further question           By order of 2 February 1999 the President of the Court of
    arises whether the provisions of national procedural law           Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
    or the general principles of law common to the legal               from the register of Case C-24/98: Commission of the
    systems of the Member States are to be applied to such a           European Communities v. Ireland.
    contract, in so far as Regulation (EEC) No 2187/93 makes
    no provision.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 72, 7.3.1998.
c) If the general principles of law are applicable, the question
    then arises whether and under what conditions the com-
    petent national authority may set aside in whole or in part
    a contract concluded in the name and on behalf of the
    Council and Commission if it subsequently transpires that
    the conditions to be fulfilled under Regulation (EEC) No
    2187/93 for the making of an offer of compensation were                   Removal from the register of Case C-371/96 (1)
    in whole or in part not met, or if the conditions for the
    making of an offer of compensation are met only because                                    (1999/C 121/30)
    the competent national authorities consider that they are
    precluded for reasons of the protection of legitimate              By order of 3 February 1999 the President of the Court of
    expectations from annulling the definitive allocation of a         Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
    special reference quantity which is a precondition for             from the register of Case C-371/96 (reference for a preliminary
    granting compensation.                                             ruling from the Tribunale di Trento): Ministero delle Finanze
                                                                       v. Cotonificio del Trentino SpA.
(1) OJ L 196, 5.8.1993, p. 6.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 40, 8.2.1997.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 31 January 2001 in Case T-156/98: RJB Mining plc v Commission of the European Communities (ECSC Treaty — Concentration between undertakings — Admissibility — State aid)

text:
5.5.2001               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 134/17
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 17 January 2001
                       of 31 January 2001
                                                                         in Case T-14/99: Marie-Jeanne Kraus v Commission of the
in Case T-156/98: RJB Mining plc v Commission of the                                        European Communities (1)
                   European Communities (1)
                                                                         (Officials — Household allowance — Recovery of undue
                                                                               payment — Manifest irregularity of the payment)
(ECSC Treaty — Concentration between undertakings —
                    Admissibility — State aid)                                                     (2001/C 134/36)
                         (2001/C 134/35)                                                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         In Case T-14/99: Marie-Jeanne Kraus, an official of the
                   (Language of the case: English)                       Commission of the European Communities, residing in Luxem-
                                                                         bourg, represented by L. Thielen, of the Luxembourg Bar, with
                                                                         an address for service in Luxembourg at the latter’s Chambers,
In Case T-156/98: RJB Mining plc, having its registered office           10 Rue Willy Goergen, v Commission of the European
at Harworth, United Kingdom, represented by M. Brealey,                  Communities (Agents: C. Berardis-Kayser, F. Clotuche-Duvieu-
Barrister, and J. Lawrence, Solicitor, with an address for service       sart and B. Wägenbaur) — application for annulment of the
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt and Medernach,                   Commission’s decision of 19 October 1998 requiring the
8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, against Commission of the European               applicant to reimburse the household allowance received —
Communities (Agents: K. Leivo and R. Lyal) supported by RAG              the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of:
Aktiengesellschaft, established in Essen (Germany), represented          P. Mengozzi, President, and V. Tiili and R.M. Moura Ramos,
by M. Hansen, Denmark, and S. Völcker, Rechtsanwalt, Berlin,             Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of             has given a judgment on 17 January 2001, in which it:
Loesch and Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe, and by Federal Republic
of Germany, (Agents: W.-D. Plessing and C.-D. Quassowski)                1.    Dismisses the action;
— application for annulment of the Commission decision of
29 July 1998 authorising the acquisition by RAG Aktienge-                2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
sellschaft of control of Saarbergwerke AG and Preussag
Anthrazit GmbH (Case No IV/ECSC.1252-RAG/Saarbergwerke                   (1) OJ C 100 of 10.4.1999.
AG/Preussag Anthrazit) — the Court of First Instance (First
Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, M. Vilaras
and N.J. Forwood, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 31 January 2001, in which it:
1.    Annuls the Commission decision of 29 July 1998 authorising
      the acquisition of control by RAG Aktiengesellschaft of                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      Saarbergwerke AG and Preussag Anthrazit GmbH (Case
      No IV/ECSC.1252 — RAG/Saarbergwerke AG/Preussag                                           of 16 January 2001
      Anthrazit);
                                                                         in Joined Cases T-97/99 and T-99/99: Michel Chamier and
2.    Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the              Eoghan O’Hannrachain v European Parliament (1)
      costs incurred by the applicant other than costs occasioned to
      the applicant by the interventions of RAG Aktiengesellschaft       (Officials — Grade A 1 post — Article 29(2) of the Staff
      and the Federal Republic of Germany;                               Regulations — Notice of vacancy — Manifest error of
                                                                                assessment — Misuse of powers)
3.    Orders RAG Aktiengesellschaft and the Federal Republic of
      Germany to bear their own costs.                                                             (2001/C 134/37)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(1) OJ C 358 of 21.11.98.
                                                                         In Joined Cases T-97/99 and T-99/99: Michel Chamier, an
                                                                         official of the European Parliament, residing at Reckange-sur-
                                                                         Mess (Luxembourg), and Eoghan O’Hannrachain, an official of
                                                                         the European Parliament, residing at Cents (Luxembourg),
                                                                         represented by G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, of the Brussels


title: Case C-307/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 30 May 2016 — Stanisław Pieńkowski v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Lublinie

text:
               12.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 335/32

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 30 May 2016 — Stanisław Pieńkowski v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Lublinie
   (Case C-307/16)
   (2016/C 335/42)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Stanisław Pieńkowski

      Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Lublinie

      Question referred

   Must Articles 146(1)(b), 147, 131 and 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) be interpreted as precluding national legislation which excludes application of the exemption to a taxable person who does not satisfy the condition relating to attainment of the relevant turnover ceiling for the previous tax year and who also has not concluded an agreement with a person authorised to refund tax to travellers?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 17 October 2002 in Case T-215/02 R: Santiago Gómez-Reino v Commission of the European Communities (Procedure for interim relief — Officials — Admissibility — Act adversely affecting an official)

text:
25.1.2003                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 19/35
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  lawyer, against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                             (Agents: H. Tserepa-Lacombe and J. Currall) — application for,
                         of 7 October 2002                                   essentially, annulment of the decision of the selection board
                                                                             for internal competition COM/A/17/96 not to include the
in Case T-24/01: Claire Staelen v Council of the European                    applicant in the list of successful candidates on the ground
               Union and European Parliament (1)                             that he did not obtain the minimum requisite number of
                                                                             marks in the oral test and seeking compensation for the
                                                                             material and non-material damage allegedly suffered — the
(Officials — Open competition — Delegation of the appoint-                   Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of
           ing authority’s powers — Inadmissibility)
                                                                             N.J. Forwood , President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges;
                                                                             H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 21 October 2002, the
                           (2003/C 19/66)                                    operative part of which is as follows:
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                             1.     There is no need to adjudicate on the present application.
In Case T-24/01: Claire Staelen, member of the temporary staff               2.     The Commission shall bear the whole of the costs.
of the European Parliament, residing in Bridel (Luxembourg),
represented by J. Choucroun, lawyer, with an address for
service in Luxembourg, against Council of the European Union
(Agents: F. Anton and A. Pilette) and European Parliament                    (1 ) OJ C 186, 30.6.2001.
(Agents: J.F. De Wachter and D. Moore) — application for
annulment of the entire marking procedure in respect of the
written tests for Competition EUR/A/151/98 or, otherwise,
annulment of the decision of the selection board refusing to
admit her to the tests subsequent to test VII.A.d) and, in the
alternative, for compensation in respect of the non-material
damage allegedly suffered — the Court of First Instance (Fourth
Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President of the Chamber,
V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an
order on 7 October 2002, the operative part of which is as
                                                                             ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
follows:
                                                                                INSTANCE
1.    The application in Case T-24/01 is dismissed as clearly
      inadmissible in so far as it is brought against the Council.                                   of 17 October 2002
2.    Each of the parties shall bear its own costs in the present action
      in so far as it is brought against the Council, including those
      relating to the proceedings for interim relief.                        in Case T-215/02 R: Santiago Gómez-Reino v Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities
( 1) OJ C 95, 24.3.2001.
                                                                             (Procedure for interim relief — Officials — Admissibility —
                                                                                Act adversely affecting an official)
                                                                                (2003/C 19/68)
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        of 21 October 2002                                                       (Language of the case: French)
in Case T-97/01: Christos Gogos v Commission of the
                    European Communities ( 1)
                   (No need to give a judgment)                              In Case T-215/02 R: Santiago Gómez-Reino, an official of
                                                                             the Commission of the European Communities, residing in
                           (2003/C 19/67)                                    Brussels, represented by M.-A. Lucas, lawyer, against Com-
                                                                             mission of the European Communities (Agents: H.P. Hartvig
                                                                             and J. Currall) — application for interim measures requiring,
                     (Language of the case: Greek)                           first, the production of certain documents, second, the suspen-
                                                                             sion of a number of decisions or prohibiting decisions to be
                                                                             taken relating to internal investigations conducted by the
In Case T-97/01: Christos Gogos, an official of the Commission               European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and, third, the adoption of
of the European Communities, represented by C. Tagaras,                      measures under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations — the
 ---pagebreak--- C 19/36                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Communities                                     25.1.2003
President of the Court of First Instance made an order on                     In that regard, the applicant takes the view that, having failed
17 October 2002, the operative part of which is as follows:                   to adopt general rules authorising the reversal of management
                                                                              duties, the Secretary General improperly adopted the contested
                                                                              decision. The duties actually carried out by the applicant since
1.    The application for interim relief is rejected.                         the adoption of that decision are moreover manifestly inferior
                                                                              to those normally carried out by an official in Grade A 3.
2.    Costs are reserved.
                                                                              Action brought on 31 October 2002 by the Gestoras Pro
Action brought on 14 October 2002 by Michel Soubies                           Amnistía association, Juan Mari Olano Olano and Julen
    against Commission of the European Communities                              Zelarain Errasti against Council of the European Union
                          (Case T-325/02)                                                             (Case T-333/02)
                          (2003/C 19/69)                                                               (2003/C 19/70)
                    (Language of the case: French)                                               (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                     An action against the Council of the European Union was
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                    brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
European Communities on 14 October 2002 by Michel                             Communities on 31 October 2002 by the Gestoras Pro
Soubies, residing in Brussels, represented by Albert Coolen,                  Amnistía association, whose offices are in Hernani (Spain),
Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, avocats.                                 Juan Mari Olano Olano, residing in Gainza (Spain), and Julen
                                                                              Zelarain Errasti, residing in San Sebastián (Spain), represented
                                                                              by Didier Rouget, lawyer.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                              The applicants claim that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of 26 November 2001 of the Secretary
      General of the Commission posting the applicant, as A
                                                                              —     order the defendant to pay compensation amounting to
      3 adviser ad personam, to Unit SG/F.2 ‘Institutional
                                                                                EUR 1 000 000 to the Gestoras Pro Amnistía association
      matters’;
                                                                                and EUR 100 000 to each of the other two applicants,
                                                                                Juan Mari Olano Olano and Julen Zelarain Errasti;
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                              —     find that those amounts give rise to default interest at the
                                                                                rate of 4.5 % per annum with effect from the date of the
                                                                                judgment of the Court of First Instance and until actual
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                     payment is effected;
                                                                              —     order the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay
The applicant, an official in Grade A 3, is challenging the                         those incurred by the applicants.
decision of the appointing authority to appoint him adviser ad
personam in Unit SG/F.2 ‘Institutional matters’, where the
head of unit was appointed in Grade A 5.
                                                                              Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of his claims, he alleges:
                                                                              The Gestoras Pro Amnistía association and two representatives
—     breach of the obligation to state reasons;                              are seeking compensation for the damage allegedly suffered as
                                                                              a result of the abovementioned association’s name having been
—     breach of the procedure for filling middle-management                   included in the list of terrorist persons, groups and bodies,
      posts, infringement of Articles 4, 5, 27 and 29 of the                  pursuant to Common Position 2001/931/CFSP ( 1), adopted on
      Staff Regulations and breach of the principles of good                  27 December 2001, confirmed by Council Common Position
      management and sound administration and of the prin-                    2002/340/CFSP (2), adopted on 2 May 2001, and Council
      ciple that officials should have reasonable career pros-                Common Position 2002/940/CFSP (3), adopted on 17 June
      pects.                                                                  2002.


title: Case C-30/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 22 January 2014  — Ryanair Ltd, Other party: PR Aviation BV

text:
               5.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 135/18

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 22 January 2014 — Ryanair Ltd, Other party: PR Aviation BV
   (Case C-30/14)
   2014/C 135/20
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ryanair Ltd

      Other party: PR Aviation BV

      Question referred

   Does the operation of the [Database Directive] (1) also extend to online databases which are not protected by copyright on the basis of Chapter II of the Directive, and also not by a sui generis right on the basis of Chapter III, in the sense that the freedom to use such databases through the (whether or not analogous) application of Articles 6(1) and 8 in conjunction with Article 15 [of the Database Directive], may not be limited contractually?

      (1)  Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases (OJ 1996 L 77, p. 20).


title: Case C-329/08: Action brought on 18 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/8

         Action brought on 18 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-329/08)
   (2008/C 272/11)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: U. Wölker and G. Rozet, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/35/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage (1), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 19 of that directive;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposition of Directive 2004/35/EC expired on 30 April 2007. At the date on which the present action was brought, the defendant had not yet adopted all the measures necessary for transposition as regards the Région de Bruxelles-Capitale.

      (1)  OJ L 143, p. 56.


title: Case F-120/06: Action brought on 26 October 2006 — Dálnoky v Commission

text:
               16.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 310/31

         Action brought on 26 October 2006 — Dálnoky v Commission
   (Case F-120/06)
   (2006/C 310/66)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Noémi Dálnoky (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Horváth, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul Notice of Open Competition EPSO/AD/47/06 (1) published by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) for the recruitment of administrators with — inter alia — Romanian citizenship;

               —

               order the defendant not to publish in future any competition, and not to conduct any published competition with the requirement to have a thorough knowledge of just one specified Community language, but with the requirement to have a thorough knowledge on any of the Community languages, unless a particular language is required in view of the specific nature of the posts to be filled;

               —

               if the abovementioned open competition was partially or fully conducted prior to its annulment by the Tribunal, order the defendant to eliminate any disadvantage suffered by the applicant or other persons due to the discriminatory provision applied in the competition, including the provision of another possibility to apply for the posts that were to be filled by Competition EPSO/AD/47/06 for those citizens who might have been discouraged from applying due to the abovementioned discriminatory provision;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, a Romanian citizen of Hungarian ethnicity and mother tongue, claims that the Notice of Open Competition EPSO/AD/47/06 is, by requiring that applicants must have a thorough knowledge of Romanian language, in breach of EC law on several points:

               —

               it violates the applicant's rights to equal treatment and non-discrimination on the basis of ethnic origin, since Romanian citizens on Romanian mother tongue are in an unfair advantage;

               —

               it constitutes a discrimination on the grounds of nationality which is forbidden by the Staff Regulations and Article 12 EC, insofar as, in earlier competitions, candidates were allowed to prove a thorough knowledge of a Community language which was not the most widely spoken language in their Member State;

               —

               it poses a requirement that is not permitted by the Staff Regulations, which only allows requiring the thorough knowledge of a particular Community language, as opposed to any one of them, if there is a specific job-related need or this is justified by some other objective and legitimate policy.

      (1)  OJ C 145 A, 21.6.2006


title: Judgment of the Court of 31 March 2017 in Case E-14/16 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to comply — Directive 95/50/EC on uniform procedures for checks on the transport of dangerous goods by road)

text:
               13.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/17

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 31 March 2017
   in Case E-14/16
   EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

      (Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to comply — Directive 95/50/EC on uniform procedures for checks on the transport of dangerous goods by road)

   (2017/C 224/08)
   In Case E-14/16, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at point 17d of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Council Directive 95/50/EC of 6 October 1995 on uniform procedures for checks on the transport of dangerous goods by road) as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, by failing to comply with Article 3(1), Article 4(1) to (5), Article 5, Article 6(1) and Article 9(1) of the Act, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 31 March 2017, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations arising under the Act referred to at point 17d of Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement (Council Directive 95/50/EC of 6 October 1995 on uniform procedures for checks on the transport of dangerous goods by road), as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, by failing, within the time prescribed, to implement Article 3(1), Article 4(1) to (5), Article 5 and Article 9(1) of the Act.

               2.

               Dismisses the application as regards failure to comply with Article 6(1) of the Act.

               3.

               Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.


title: Case C-637/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 9 December 2016 — Florian Hanig v Air France SA

text:
               20.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/8

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 9 December 2016 — Florian Hanig v Air France SA
   (Case C-637/16)
   (2017/C 086/10)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Florian Hanig

      Defendant: Air France SA

      Question referred

   Must heading (b) of the first sentence of Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, (1) be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘intra-Community’ also extends to those territories that are so-called ‘overseas countries and territories’ under Annex II to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, for which only the special arrangements for association set out in Part Four of the TFEU apply?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.


title: Case T-195/98: Action brought on 11 December 1998 by Ettlin Gesellschaft für Spinnerei und Weberei AG and others against the Council of the European Union

text:
C 160/22               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       5.6.1999
Action brought on 11 December 1998 by Ettlin Gesell-                    Hootz Hirsch Rechtsanwälte, Brussels, with an address for
schaft für Spinnerei und Weberei AG and others against                  service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter,
              the Council of the European Union                         11, rue Goethe.
                         (Case T-195/98)
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                        (1999/C 160/42)
                                                                        1. annul article 1 of the Decision of the Commission of
                                                                            28 October 1998 [State aid in favour of Sniace Spain —
                  (Language of the case: English)                           No C 68/97 (ex NN 118/97)], in so far as it contains
                                                                            findings by the Commission that
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European                  — the non-recovery by the social insurance institution of
Communities on 11 December 1998 by Ettlin Gesellschaft für                       debts due, default surcharges and interest, and the debt
Spinnerei und Weberei AG and others, represented by Clive                        rescheduling agreements concluded between Sniace
Stanbrook QC and Professor Alan Dashwood with an address                         and the Social Insurance Institution on 8 March 1996,
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arsène Krons-                       7 May 1996 and 30 September 1997, together with
hagen, 22, rue Marie Adélaïde.
                                                                            — the non-recovery by the wage guarantee fund, Fogasa,
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                      of debts due and default interest, and the agreements
                                                                                concluded between Sniace and Fogasa on 5 November
— declare void, pursuant to articles 173 and 174 EC, the                         1993 and 31 October 1995
    Council’s decision to reject the Commission’s proposal for
    a Regulation (1) imposing definitive anti-dumping duties            do not constitute — apart from the charging of interest at
    on imports of unbleached cotton fabric from India,                  below market rates — State aid within the meaning of article
    Indonesia, Pakistan, Turkey, China and Egypt, and (2)               92(1) of the EC Treaty;
    collecting the provisional duties imposed by Regulation
    (EC) No 773/98 of 7 April 1998,
                                                                        2. order the Commission to pay the costs,
— determine, pursuant to articles 178 and 215 (2) EC, that
    the Council is liable to make good the damage caused to the         3. order the defendant, pursuant to article 21 if the EC Statute
    applicants by its unlawful rejection of the Commission’s                of the Court of Justice and article 65 of the Rules of
    proposal for a Regulation imposing anti-dumping duties,                 Procedure of the Court of First Instance, to produce the
    and                                                                     following documents:
— order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the
    Council.                                                                — the Spanish Government’s statement of views on the
                                                                                applicant’s complaints dated 4 July 1996, 26 Novem-
                                                                                ber 1996 and 9 December 1996,
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                            — the Spanish Government’s statement of views on the
The grounds and arguments are similar to those invoked in                        applicant’s response dated 17 April 1997,
Case T-213/97 (1).
                                                                            — all statements of views issued by the Spanish Govern-
(1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997, p. 23.                                                 ment in the proceeding under article 93(2) of the EC
                                                                                Treaty.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
Action brought on 11 February 1999 by Lenzing Aktien-                   By the contested decision, State aid granted by the Spanish
gesellschaft against the Commission of the European                     authorities in favour of the viscose fibre producer Sociedad
                           Communities                                  Nacional de Industrias y Aplicaciones de Celuloso Española
                                                                        SA (Sniace) was declared to be incompatible with the common
                          (Case T-36/99)                                market; however, following examination of the measures
                                                                        referred to in the form of order sought by the applicant, those
                        (1999/C 160/43)                                 measures were assessed as not constituting unlawful aid.
                  (Language of the case: German)                        The applicant, which is the largest producer of viscose and
                                                                        modal fibres in Europe and a competitor of Sniace, pleads the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               following infringements by the Commission:
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 11 February 1999 by Lenzing                     — infringement of article 92(1) of the EC Treaty, in that the
Aktiengesellschaft, of Lenzing (Republic of Austria), represent-            contested decision limited the scope of the aid to the
ed by Hans-Jörg Niemeyer, Rechtsanwalt, of Messrs Gleiss Lutz               financial advantage accruing to Sniace from the charging


title: Case T-54/08: Action brought on 4 February 2008 — Republic of Cyprus v Commission

text:
               29.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/34

         Action brought on 4 February 2008 — Republic of Cyprus v Commission
   (Case T-54/08)
   (2008/C 79/65)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: P. Kliridis, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the procurement notice under reference EuropeAid/125051/D/SUP/CY for the conclusion of a contract entitled ‘Upgrading the Management of the Energy Sector — Energy Metering and Reactive Power Compensation’, which was published, only in English, on the webpage http://ec.europa.eu/europaid/tender/data/ on or around 24 November 2007, and annul Articles 5 and 23 of the notice;

               —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant submits that the notice is unlawful for the following reasons:

               —

               first, because, in issuing the notice, the Commission exceeded and/or infringed its legal basis, to be specific Council Regulation (EC) No 389/2006 of 27 February 2006 establishing an instrument of financial support for encouraging the economic development of the Turkish Cypriot community and amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2667/2000 on the European Agency for Reconstruction (1);

               —

               second, because the notice is contrary to and/or incompatible with Article 299 EC, as amended by Article 19 of the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic (‘the 2003 Act of Accession’) and Protocol No 10, on Cyprus, to the 2003 Act of Accession; and

               —

               third, because the notice is contrary to or incompatible with both obligations flowing from rules of mandatory international law and United Nations Security Council Resolutions 541(1983) and 550(1984).

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 65, p. 5.


title: Case T-357/17: Action brought on 6 June 2017 — Aide et Action France v Commission

text:
               14.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/28

         Action brought on 6 June 2017 — Aide et Action France v Commission
   (Case T-357/17)
   (2017/C 269/40)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Aide et Action France (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Le Mière, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission of 6 April 2017, as well as debit note No 3241607987 received on 8 August 2016, with all the legal consequences which that entails;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay Aide et Action France EUR 8 000 on the basis of Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court of the European Union.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the applicant has an interest in bringing proceedings and standing, since the decision of 6 April 2017 (‘the contested decision’) has legal effects as regards the applicant.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision contains an inadequate statement of reasons, in that:

                           —

                           that decision infringes Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’);

                           —

                           that decision does not contain any clear and unambiguous factual or legal elements;

                           —

                           the Commission merely invokes contractual breaches, without referring to any contractual provision on the basis of which such breaches could be established, or on the basis of which the amount of the debt alleged could be determined;

                           —

                           that decision is insufficiently reasoned even in the light of its context;

                           —

                           the investigations and the summary of the facts of the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF) did not enable the applicant to understand the scope of the measure taken against it.

               3.

               Third plea in law, concerning the refusal of access to OLAF’s final report sent to the European Commission, in that:

                           —

                           the contested decision infringes Article 15(3) TFEU, Article 42 of the Charter and Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents;

                           —

                           once the debit note had been issued and the decision to proceed with recovery by offsetting had been taken, the applicant should have had access to OLAF’s final report in order to exercise its rights of defence fully;

                           —

                           the Commission should have agreed on the national conditions as regards the right of access to documents on which an unfavourable decision is based;

                           —

                           the Grant Contract provided that investigation reports and evaluations of the Commission should be notified;

                           —

                           the Commission could in any event have disclosed a document by redacting certain passages.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is unfounded and, therefore, infringes the TFEU, in that:

                           —

                           the contested decision infringes Article 209 TFEU and its implementing Financial Regulations No 966/2012 of 25 October 2012 and No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012;

                           —

                           the contested decision is not based on any claim which is certain, of a fixed amount and due;

                           —

                           all of the funds received by the applicant were entirely used for the implementation of the programme for which the European funds had been granted, in accordance with Article 14 of Annex 2 to the Grant Contract.


title: Case C-8/09: Action brought on 9 January 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/25

         Action brought on 9 January 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-8/09)
   (2009/C 69/45)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Cattabriga and J. Sénéchal, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by not adopting all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2006/17/EC of 8 February 2006 implementing Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards certain technical requirements for the donation, procurement and testing of human tissues and cells (1) or, in any case, by not communicating them to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The deadline for transposition of Directive 2006/17/EC expired on 1 November 2006. When this action was brought, the defendant had not yet adopted all the measures necessary to transpose the directive or, in any case, had not communicated them to the Commission.

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 38, p. 40.


title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 83, 5.4.2003

text:
26.4.2003         EN                     Official Journal of the European Union                         C 101/55
                                                            III
                                                         (Notices)
                                                     (2003/C 101/97)
                 Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union
          OJ C 83, 5.4.2003
          Past publications
          OJ C 70, 22.3.2003
          OJ C 55, 8.3.2003
          OJ C 44, 22.2.2003
          OJ C 31, 8.2.2003
          OJ C 19, 25.1.2003
          OJ C 7, 11.1.2003
                                               These texts are available on:
                                          EUR-Lex: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex
                                           CELEX: http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Case C-399/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 16 October 2009 — Marie Landtová v Česká správa sociálního zabezbečení

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 16 October 2009 — Marie Landtová v Česká správa sociálního zabezbečení
   (Case C-399/09)
   2010/C 24/31
   Language of the case: Czech

      Referring court

   Nejvyšší správní soud

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Marie Landtová

      Defendant: Česká správa sociálního zabezbečení

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must point 6 in Part A of Annex III in connection with Article 7(2)(c) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, (1) according to which the criterion for determining the successor state competent to take into account the insurance period completed by employed persons up to 31 December 1992 in the social security system of the former Czech and Slovak Federal Republic is to remain applicable, be interpreted as precluding the application of a rule of national law according to which a Czech social security institution is to take into account fully, with regard to the entitlement to a benefit and the fixing of the amount thereof, the insurance period completed in the territory of the former Czech and Slovak Federal Republic up to 31 December 1992, even though, according to the above mentioned criterion, it is a social security institution of the Slovak Republic which is competent to take it into account?

               2.

               If the first question is answered in the negative, must Article 12 of the Treaty establishing the European Community in conjunction with Articles 3(1), 10 and 46 of the Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community be interpreted as precluding that the insurance period completed in the social security system of the former Czech and Slovak Federal Republic up to 31 December 1992, which has already been taken into account once to the same extent for benefit purposes in the social security system of the Slovak Republic, be, pursuant to the above mentioned national rule, taken fully into account, with regard to the entitlement to old age benefit and the fixing of the amount thereof, only in respect of nationals of the Czech Republic resident in its territory?

      (1)  OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416.


title: Case T-275/03: Action brought on 4 August 2003 by Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
C 251/14              EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                          18.10.2003
The applicant further alleges: breach of the duty to give                contested Decision. The opening of the procedure was not
reasons for decisions, the duty to have regard for the welfare           properly based on public health considerations. Furthermore,
of officials and of the principle of sound administration;               the referral and the opening of the procedure covered the
manifest error of assessment; breach of the principle of                 entire content of the SPC. This goes beyond the permissible
legitimate expectations; and, finally, misuse of powers.                 scope of an Article 30 referral, and such a procedure does not
                                                                         allow for the adoption of a harmonised SPC. Moreover, the
                                                                         opening of the procedure lacked proper reasoning.
                                                                         Furthermore, the applicants submit that the harmonisation of
                                                                         the SPCs in the contested Decision was illegal, since the
                                                                         Commission did not have the power to adopt the Decision.
                                                                         In the alternative, the applicants argue that even if the
Action brought on 1 August 2003 by Merck Sharp &                         Commission could, in principle, have harmonised the SPCs
Dohme Limited and 8 others against the Commission of                     for RENITEC, the Commission has failed to identify any public
                 the European Communities                                health reasons justifying the harmonisation of the SPCs.
                        (Case T-273/03)
                        (2003/C 251/27)                                  The applicants finally claim that the contested Decision is
                                                                         illegal because binding time-limits of the Directive were not
                  (Language of the case: English)                        observed and because the Commission and the Committee for
                                                                         Proprietary Medicinal Products failed to provide sufficient rea-
                                                                         soning.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities on 1 August 2003 by Merck
Sharp & Dohme Limited, Hoddesdon, (United Kingdom),                      (1) Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V., Haalem, (Netherlands),                             Council on the Community code relating to medicinal products
Laboratoires Merck Sharp & Dohme-Chibret, Paris, (France),                   for human use (OJ L 311 of 28.11.2001, p. 67).
MSD Sharp & Dohme GmbH, Haar, (Germany), Merck Sharp
& Dohme (Italia) SpA., Rome, (Italy), Merck Sharp & Dohme,
LDA, Paço de Arcos, (Portugal), Merck Sharp & Dohme de
Espana S.A., Madrid, (Spain), Merck Sharp & Dohme Ges.m.b.
H., Vienna, (Austria), and VIANEX S.A., Nea Erythrea, (Greece),
represented by Mr G. Berrisch and Mr P. Bogaert, lawyers.
                                                                         Action brought on 4 August 2003 by Focus Magazin
The applicants claim that the Court should:                              Verlag GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in
                                                                                the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
—     annul the contested Decision;                                                                (Case T-275/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 251/28)
—     order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs.
                                                                         (Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2) of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was
                                                                                submitted: German)
The applicants are Marketing Authorization Holders of the
medicinal product RENITEC and associated trade names.
RENITEC contains the active ingredient ‘enalapril’ and is used           An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
in treatment of hypertension and heart failure.                          Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
                                                                         Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
The applicants challenge the Commission Decision C(2003)                 4 August 2003 by Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH, Munich
1752 of 21 May 2003 concerning the placing on the market                 (Germany), represented by U. Gürtler, lawyer. ECI Telecom
of medicinal products for human use containing the substance             Ltd., Petach Tikva (Israel) was also a party to the proceedings
‘enalapril’ by which the Commission harmonised the Summary               before the Board of Appeal.
of Product Characteristics (‘SPC’) for RENITEC and associated
trade names. The contested Decision was adopted as a result of
a referral procedure under Article 30 of Directive 2001/83/EC            The applicant claims that the Court should:
of the European Parliament and the Council (1).
                                                                         —     annul Decision No 2055/2001 of the Opposition
The applicants argue that the initiation of the Article 30                     Division of the defendant of 27 August 2001 in opposi-
procedure was illegal and that that entails the illegality of the              tion proceedings B 288680;
 ---pagebreak--- 18.10.2003            EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 251/15
—     annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of                 Action brought on 5 August 2003 by Galileo
      the defendant of 30 April 2003 in appeal proceedings                International Technology LLC and 13 Others against the
      R 913/2001-4;                                                               Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-279/03)
—     instruct the defendant to make a determination on the
                                                                                (2003/C 251/29)
      merits in opposition proceedings B 288680, taking
      account of the legal view of the matter formed by the
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
      adjudicating court;
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
—     order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.            of the European Communities on 5 August 2003 by Claude
                                                                          Delcorde, Jean-Noël Louis, Julie-Anne Delcorde and Spyros
                                                                          Maniatopoulos, lawyers, represented by Claude Delcorde,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Jean-Noël Louis, Julie-Anne Delcorde and Spyros
                                                                          Maniatopoulos, lawyers, with an address for service in
                                                                          Luxembourg.
Applicant for Community        ECI Telecom Ltd.
trade mark:
Community trade mark           Word mark ‘Hi-FOCuS’ in respect
sought:                        of goods and services in Classes 9
                               and 38 — application No                    The applicants claim that the Court should:
                               1 338 029
Proprietor of mark or          The applicant
sign cited in the opposi-
tion proceedings:                                                         —    Prohibit the Commission from making any use of the
Mark or sign cited in          The German mark ‘FOCUS’ (No                     word ‘Galileo’ in relation to the satellite radio navigation
opposition:                    394 07 564) in respect of goods                 system project and to cease causing directly or indirectly
                               and services in Classes 3, 5, 6, 7,             any third party whatsoever to use that word in the con-
                               8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24,               text of that project, and prohibit it from having any part
                               25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 33, 34, 38,                 whatsoever in the use of that word by any third party;
                               39, 41 and 42
Decision of the Opposi-        Rejection of the opposition
tion Division:
                                                                          —    order the Commission to pay the applicants, acting
Decision of the Board of       Dismissal    of    the   applicant's            jointly and severally, the amount of EUR 50 million as
Appeal:                        appeal                                          compensation for the material damage suffered;
Pleas in law:                  —    Submission in the opposi-
                                    tion proceedings of adequate
                                    evidence of the applicant's
                                    earlier right;
                                                                          In the alternative,
                               —    Infringement of the appli-
                                    cant's right to a hearing;
                               —    Infringement of the appli-
                                    cant's right of due process;
                                                                               —    in the event that the Commission continues to use
                               —    Infringement of Article                         the word ‘Galileo’, order it to pay the applicants an
                                    42 of Regulation (EC) No                        amount of EUR 240 million;
                                    40/94 (1) and Rule 20(3)
                                    of Regulation (EC) No
                                    2868/95 (2).
                                                                               —    order the Commission to pay the applicant, as from
                                                                                the date of filing of the application, default interest
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the                     calculated by reference to the ECB rate plus 2 per
    Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).                                      cent;
(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995
    implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the
    Community trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).
                                                                               —    order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case C-355/05: Action brought on  22 September 2005  by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland

text:
               26.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/15

         Action brought on 22 September 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland
   (Case C-355/05)
   (2005/C 296/28)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 September 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Mr. Bernhard Schima and Ms. Doyin Lawumni, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that by failing to adopt all of the laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC (1) or, in any event, by failing to notify such provisions to the Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 33 of the Directive.

               2.

               order Ireland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period within which the directive had to be transposed expired on 1 July 2004.

      (1)  OJ L 176, 15.7. 2003


title: Case C-3/04: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of  16 March 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Utrecht) — Poseidon Chartering BV v Marianne Zeeschip VOF, Albert Mooij, Sjoerdtje Sijswerda, Gerrit Schram (Directive 86/653/EEC — Self-employed commercial agents — Meaning of commercial agent — Conclusion and extensions of a single contract over several years)

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/8

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 March 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Utrecht) — Poseidon Chartering BV v Marianne Zeeschip VOF, Albert Mooij, Sjoerdtje Sijswerda, Gerrit Schram
   (Case C-3/04) (1)

   (Directive 86/653/EEC - Self-employed commercial agents - Meaning of commercial agent - Conclusion and extensions of a single contract over several years)
   (2006/C 131/14)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Rechtbank Utrecht
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant(s): Poseidon Chartering BV

      Defendant(s): Marianne Zeeschip VOF, Albert Mooij, Sjoerdtje Sijswerda, Gerrit Schram
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank Utrecht — Interpretation of Article 1(2) of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents (OJ 1986 L 382, p. 17) — Meaning of commercial agent — Self-employed intermediary, who has negotiated a charter for a ship-owner, and its extension from year to year, in return for a commission
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 1(2) of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents is to be interpreted as meaning that, where a self-employed intermediary had authority to conclude a single contract, subsequently extended over several years, the condition laid down by that provision that the authority be continuing requires that the principal should have conferred continuing authority on that intermediary to negotiate successive extensions to that contract.

      (1)  OJ C 59 of 6.3.2004.