title: Case C-38/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Budai Központi Kerületi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 24 January 2017 — GT v HS

text:
               6.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/2

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Budai Központi Kerületi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 24 January 2017 — GT v HS
   (Case C-38/17)
   (2017/C 178/02)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Budai Központi Kerületi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: GT

      Defendant: HS

      Questions referred

   Do:
   the European Union’s competence to ensure a high level of protection for consumers,
   the fundamental principles of Union law of equality before the law, the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial,
   several elements of the recitals of Directive 93/13/[EEC] (1) (‘… whereas the two Community programmes for a consumer protection and information policy underlined the importance of safeguarding consumers in the matter of unfair terms of contract; whereas this protection ought to be provided by laws and regulations which are either harmonized at Community level or adopted directly at that level; whereas in accordance with the principle laid down under the heading “Protection of the economic interests of the consumers”, as stated in those programmes: “acquirers of goods and services should be protected against the abuse of power by the seller or supplier, in particular against one-sided standard contracts and the unfair exclusion of essential rights in contracts”; whereas more effective protection of the consumer can be achieved by adopting uniform rules of law in the matter of unfair terms; whereas those rules should apply to all contracts concluded between sellers or suppliers and consumers; whereas as a result inter alia contracts relating to employment, contracts relating to succession rights, contracts relating to rights under family law and contracts relating to the incorporation and organization of companies or partnership contracts must be excluded from this Directive; whereas the consumer must receive equal protection under contracts concluded by word of mouth and written contracts regardless, in the latter case, of whether the terms of the contract are contained in one or more documents; whereas, however, as they now stand, national laws allow only partial harmonization to be envisaged; whereas, in particular, only contractual terms which have not been individually negotiated are covered by this Directive; whereas Member States should have the option, with due regard for the Treaty, to afford consumers a higher level of protection through national provisions that are more stringent than those of this Directive; … whereas contracts should be drafted in plain, intelligible language, the consumer should actually be given an opportunity to examine all the terms and, if in doubt, the interpretation most favourable to the consumer should prevail; …’), and
   Article 4(2) and Article 5 of Directive 93/13/[EEC]
   preclude binding national case-law that a) and/or b)

               a)

               imposes no obligation on the counterparty of the consumer, as a condition of validity of the contract, to enable the consumer, before entering into a contract, to read the terms of the contract, written in clear and intelligible language, which form the main subject matter of that contract, including the exchange rate applicable to payments for a currency loan contract, in order to prevent the invalidity of the contract;

               b)

               enables the counterparty of the consumer to communicate (in a specific document, for example), the terms of the contract, written in clear and intelligible language, which form the main subject matter of that contract, including the exchange rate applicable to payments for a currency loan contract, only at a time when the consumer has already irrevocably committed himself to performing the contract, without this circumstance alone being a ground for the invalidity of the contract?

      (1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ L 95, 1993, p. 29).


title: Case C-427/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 1 August 2016 — ‘Chez Elektro Balgaria’ AD v Yordan Kotsev

text:
               10.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 1 August 2016 — ‘Chez Elektro Balgaria’ AD v Yordan Kotsev
   (Case C-427/16)
   (2016/C 371/07)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Sofiyski rayonen sad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant:‘Chez Elektro Balgaria’ AD

      Defendant: Yordan Kotsev

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 101(1) TFEU (prohibition of the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition) preclude Paragraph 36(2) of the Law on the Legal Profession under which an association of undertakings which practise liberal professions (the Supreme Council of the Legal Profession) has discretion, by virtue of a power conferred on it by the State, to lay down in advance the minimum level of the prices for the services supplied by those undertakings (legal fees)?

               2.

               If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, does the last part of Paragraph 78(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure (in which that provision does not allow a reduction of the lawyer’s fee to below a fixed minimum amount) conflict with Article 101(1) TFEU?

               3.

               If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, does Paragraph 132(5) of the Law on the Legal Profession (with regard to the application of Paragraph 136(1) of that law) conflict with Article 101(1) TFEU?

               4.

               Does the first paragraph of Article 56 TFEU (prohibition of restrictions on freedom to provide services) preclude Paragraph 36(2) of the Law on the Legal Profession?

               5.

               Does Paragraph 78(8) of the Code of Civil Procedure conflict with Article 101(1) TFEU?

               6.

               Does Paragraph 78(8) of the Code of Civil Procedure conflict with Directive 77/249/EEC (1) (as regards the right of persons represented by in-house legal advisers to claim legal fees)?

               7.

               Does Paragraph 2a of the Supplementary Provisions to Order No 1 conflict with Directive 2006/112/EC, (2) which allows value added tax to be regarded as a component part of the price of the service supplied in the exercise of a profession (in relation to the inclusion of value added tax as part of the lawyer’s fee payable)?

      (1)  Council Directive 77/249/EEC of 22 March 1977 to facilitate the effective exercise by lawyers of freedom to provide services (OJ 1977 L 78, p. 17).

      (2)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 April 2004 in Case C-341/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg): Plato Plastik Robert Frank GmbH v Caropack Handelsgesellschaft mbH (Directive 94/62/EC — Packaging and waste packaging — Plastic carrier bags — National legislation on the collection and recovery of used packaging and waste packaging — Collection and recovery of used packaging and waste packaging — Obligation to have recourse to an approved undertaking or to organise a collection system — Admissibility)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/12

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 29 April 2004
   in Case C-341/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg): Plato Plastik Robert Frank GmbH v Caropack Handelsgesellschaft mbH (1)

   (Directive 94/62/EC - Packaging and waste packaging - Plastic carrier bags - National legislation on the collection and recovery of used packaging and waste packaging - Collection and recovery of used packaging and waste packaging - Obligation to have recourse to an approved undertaking or to organise a collection system - Admissibility)
   (2004/C 118/22)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-341/01: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC from the Landesgericht (Regional Court) Korneuburg (Austria) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Plato Plastik Robert Frank GmbH and Caropack Handelsgesellschaft mbH — on the interpretation of Article 3(1) of European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste (OJ 1994 L 365, p. 10) and other Community provisions — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. W. A. Timmermans, acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber, A. Rosas (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 April 2004, in which it has ruled:

               1.

               Article 3(1) of European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste must be construed as meaning that plastic carrier bags given to customers in a shop, whether free of charge or not, are packaging within the meaning of that directive.

               2.

               The concept of ‘producer’ in the context of the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Directive 94/62 refers to the producer of the goods, not the manufacturer of the packaging produced.

      (1)  OJ C 331, 24.11.2001.


title: Case C-449/03: Action brought on 24 October 2003 by French Republic against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 289/18                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                       29.11.2003
Action brought on 24 October 2003 by French Republic                       Action brought on 27 October 2003 by the Commission
  against the Commission of the European Communities                       of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy
                                                                                of Luxembourg
                           (Case C-449/03)
                                                                                (Case C-450/03)
                          (2003/C 289/35)
                                                                                (2003/C 289/36)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European               brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
Communities on 24 October 2003 by the French Republic,                     ties on 27 October 2003 by the Commission of the European
represented by M. Konstantinidis and B. Stromsky, acting as                Communities, represented by K. Banks, acting as Agent, with
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                         an address for service in Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                           the Court should:
1.    declare that, by failing to issue a permit for the operation
      of the waste tip situated within the limits of the munici-           1.    Declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations
      pality of Saint-Laurent du Maroni, the French Republic                     and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9 of                    Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of
      Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste,                     the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of
      as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC (1);                                    biotechnological inventions (1) or, in any event, by not
                                                                                communicating those provisions to the Commission, the
                                                                                Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
2.    declare that, by refraining from taking the necessary                      obligations under Article 15 of that directive;
      measures to ensure that the waste on the abovementioned
      tip is treated or disposed of without endangering human              2.    Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
      health and without using processes or methods which
      might harm the environment, the French Republic has
      failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4 of Council
      Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as                    Pleas in law and main arguments
      amended by Directive 91/156/EEC;
3.    declare that, by refraining from taking the necessary                The time-limit fixed for the transposition of the directive
      measures to ensure that the operator of the abovemen-                expired on 30 July 2000.
      tioned tip itself treat or dispose of waste or have it
      handled by a private or public waste collector, the French
      Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8        (1) OJ L 213 of 30.07.1998, p. 13.
      of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on
      waste, as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC;
4.    order the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                           Action brought on 28 October 2003 by the Commission
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                                Belgium
The existence of a wild tipping site operated by the munici-                                       (Case C-454/03)
pality of Saint-Laurent du Maroni has resulted in a deterioration
of the environment during an extended period. The French
Republic has not taken steps to close down the illegal tip or to                                   (2003/C 289/37)
rehabilitate it. It has not taken measures to ensure that waste
is deposited in an authorised tip.
                                                                           An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
(1) OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32.                                                   before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                           28 October 2003 by the Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities, represented by K. Banks, acting as Agent, with
                                                                           an address for service in Luxembourg.


title: Action brought on 1 April 1997 by the Region of Tuscany against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-81/97)

text:
31 . 5 . 97             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 166/21
The applicant claims that the Court should :                           The corresponding request for payment in full was made
                                                                       by letter of 31 March 1995 from the Assessore Regionale
— annul the Commission's decision of 18 June 1996                      all'Agricoltura, which was never answered by the
     rejecting the applicant's request that it give                    Commission. Consequently, in November 1996, since the
     consideration to the possible application of Article 31           applicant region had not received the payment requested,
     ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,                                   it sent a request for payment to the Commission , which
                                                                       stated in response that, as the request for payment in full
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision                   in respect of the project in question should have reached it
     adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996                     by 31 March 1995 , whereas it had only arrived four days
     expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,                    later, the Community assistance had to be withdrawn
                                                                       pursuant to Article 10 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 4256/
— order the defendant to pay all the costs.                            88 (').
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    The applicant claims in the first place that Article 10 of
                                                                       Regulation ( EEC ) No 4256/88 has been infringed in so far
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                 as that provision does not provide that requests for
Case T- 16/97 ( M.                                                     payment must be received by the Commission by
                                                                       31 March, but only that they must have been 'the subject
H OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p. 27.                                     of a request for final payment by 31 March 1995 '.
                                                                       Consequently, the letter from the Region of Tuscany
                                                                       correctly complies with the provision of the Regulation in
                                                                       question, which lays down the deadline for sending the
                                                                       request and not for its receipt.
Action brought on 1 April 1997 by the Region of Tuscany                The application also claims that there has been a failure to
  against the Commission of the European Communities                   comply with the principle of proportionality. In the
                          (Case T-81/97)                               applicant's view, even it is accepted that the region did not
                           ( 97/C 166/43 )                             correctly comply with the provision — which it denies —,
                                                                       the economic burden is excessive by comparison with the
                  (Language of the case: Italian)                      aim pursued, that is to say, the automatic sanction of
                                                                       forfeiture of the security laid down for a markedly less
An action against the Commission of the European                       serious infringement than failure to fulfil the principal
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      obligation which the security itself is intended to
Instance of the European Communities on 1 April 1997                   guarantee .
by the Region of Tuscany, Florence, represented by Vito
Vacchi and Lucia Bora, of the Florence Bar, with an                    Lastly, the applicant claims that there has been a further
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                   infringement of Community law in the shape of a breach
Paolo Benocci, 50 Rue de Vianden.                                      of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations . It
                                                                       points in this connection to the complete lack of reaction
The applicant claims that the Court should :                           on the part of the Commission between May 1995 and
                                                                       November 1996 . That lack of reaction created a legitimate
— annul memorandum VI/040551 of the European                           expectation in the region that it would receive the funding
     Commission — Directorate General for Agriculture —                already earmarked for the works in question, given that it
     of 21 November 1994,                                              had been established that the works had been properly
                                                                       completed .
— annul the act — never notified to the applicant region
     — by which the European Commission withdrew the                   (') Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 4256/88 of 19 December 1988
     Community assistance earmarked under the Integrated                   laying down provisions for implementing Regulation ( EEC )
     Mediterranean Programme (IMP) for project No                          No 2052/88 as regards the EAGGF Guidance Section ( OJ No
     88.20 .IT.006.0 (works for the supply of potable water                L 374 , 1988 , p. 25 ), as amended by Regulation ( EEC )
                                                                           No 2085/93 of 20 July 1993 ( OJ No L 193 , 1993 , p. 44 ).
     in Tuscany ),
— annul the European Commission 's memorandum of
     31 January 1997, received by the applicant on
     7 February 1997, by which the Commission informed
     it that the assistance had been withdrawn .
                                                                       Action brought on 28 March 1997 by Patrick Rousseaux
                                                                          against the Commission of the European Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                ( Case T-82/97)
In this case the Region of Tuscany challenges the                                                 ( 97/C 166/44 )
defendant's act withdrawing the financial assistance
earmarked         under      the   Integrated    Mediterranean                        (Language of the case: French)
Programme ( IMP ) for a project for the supply of potable
water in Tuscany amounting in total to approximately                   An action against the Commission of the European
ECU 900 000 .                                                          Communities was brought before the Court of First


title: Case C-170/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 5 April 2013 — Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v ZTE Corp., ZTE Deutschland GmbH

text:
               27.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 215/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 5 April 2013 — Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v ZTE Corp., ZTE Deutschland GmbH
   (Case C-170/13)
   2013/C 215/04
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd

      Defendants: ZTE Corp., ZTE Deutschland GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the proprietor of a standard-essential patent who informs a standardisation body that he is willing to grant any third party a licence on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms abuse his dominant market position if he brings an action for an injunction against a patent infringer although the infringer has declared that he is willing to negotiate concerning such a licence?
               or
               is an abuse of the dominant market position to be presumed only where the infringer has submitted to the proprietor of a standard-essential patent an acceptable, unconditional offer to conclude a licensing agreement which the patentee cannot refuse without unfairly impeding the infringer or breaching the prohibition of discrimination, and the infringer fulfils his contractual obligations for acts of use already performed in anticipation of the licence to be granted?

               2.

               If abuse of a dominant market position is already to be presumed as a consequence of the infringer’s willingness to negotiate:
               Does Article 102 TFEU lay down particular qualitative and/or time requirements in relation to the willingness to negotiate? In particular, can willingness to negotiate be presumed where the patent infringer has merely stated (orally) in a general way that that he is prepared to enter into negotiations, or must the infringer already have entered into negotiations by, for example, submitting specific conditions upon which he is prepared to conclude a licensing agreement?

               3.

               If the submission of an acceptable, unconditional offer to conclude a licensing agreement is a prerequisite for abuse of a dominant market position:
               Does Article 102 TFEU lay down particular qualitative and/or time requirements in relation to that offer? Must the offer contain all the provisions which are normally included in licensing agreements in the field of technology in question? In particular, may the offer be made subject to the condition that the standard-essential patent is actually used and/or is shown to be valid?

               4.

               If the fulfilment of the infringer’s obligations arising from the licence that is to be granted is a prerequisite for the abuse of a dominant market position:
               Does Article 102 TFEU lay down particular requirements with regard to those acts of fulfilment? Is the infringer particularly required to render an account for past acts of use and/or to pay royalties? May an obligation to pay royalties be discharged, if necessary, by depositing a security?

               5.

               Do the conditions under which the abuse of a dominant position by the proprietor of a standard-essential patent is to be presumed apply also to an action on the ground of other claims (for rendering of accounts, recall of products, damages) arising from a patent infringement?


title: Case C-411/09, Case C-412/09, Case C-413/09, Case C-414/09, Case C-415/09, Case C-416/09, Case C-417/09, Case C-418/09, Case C-419/09, Case C-420/09: References for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Nanterre (France) lodged on 28 October 2009 — Cases Tereos v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers Vermandoise Industries SA v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers Sucreries de Toury et Usines annexes SA v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers Roquette Frères SA v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers Sucreries & Distilleries de Souppes-Ouvré Fils SA v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers Cristal Union, successor in title of Sucreries et Raffineries d'Erstein and Sucrerie de Bourgogne v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers Lesaffre Frères SA v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers Sucrerie Bourdon v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers SAFBA Fontaine-le-Dun SA v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers Sucreries du Marquenterre v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers

text:
               19.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 312/26

         References for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Nanterre (France) lodged on 28 October 2009 — Cases Tereos v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers Vermandoise Industries SA v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers Sucreries de Toury et Usines annexes SA v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers Roquette Frères SA v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers Sucreries & Distilleries de Souppes-Ouvré Fils SA v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers Cristal Union, successor in title of Sucreries et Raffineries d'Erstein and Sucrerie de Bourgogne v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers Lesaffre Frères SA v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers Sucrerie Bourdon v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers SAFBA Fontaine-le-Dun SA v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers Sucreries du Marquenterre v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers
   ((Case C-411/09) - (Case C-412/09) - (Case C-413/09) - (Case C-414/09) - (Case C-415/09) - (Case C-416/09) - (Case C-417/09) - (Case C-418/09) - (Case C-419/09) - (Case C-420/09))
   2009/C 312/42
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de Grande Instance de Nanterre

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Tereos (C-411/09), Vermandoise Industries SA (C-412/09), Sucreries de Toury et Usines annexes SA (C-413/09), Roquette Frères SA (C-414/09), Sucreries & Distilleries de Souppes-Ouvré Fils SA (C-415/09), Cristal Union, successor in title of Sucreries et Raffineries d'Erstein and Sucrerie de Bourgogne (C-416/09), Lesaffre Frères SA (C-417/09), Sucrerie Bourdon (C-418/09), SAFBA Fontaine-le-Dun SA (C-419/09), Sucreries du Marquenterre (C-420/09)

      Defendants: Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers

      Question referred

   Is Regulation No 164/2007 (1) invalid in the light of Article 15 of Council Regulation No 1260/2001 (2) in that it fixes a production levy for sugar which is calculated on the basis of an average loss per tonne exported which does not take account of the quantities exported without a refund, although those quantities are included in the total used to evaluate the overall loss to be financed?

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 164/2007 of 19 February 2007 fixing the production levies in the sugar sector for the 2005/06 marketing year (OJ 2007 L 51, p. 17).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (OJ 2001 L 178, p. 1).


title: Action brought on 14 July 1997 by Sari Kristiina Jouhki against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-215/97)

text:
C 357/28                 EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                22 . 11 . 97
Manseau, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in              Ms Jouhki the opportunity to take part in open
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8—10                      competition COM/B/973 .
Rue Mathias Hardt, against Commission of the European
Communities ( Agent: Hendrik van Lier) — application for
annulment of the Commission decision, notified to the                  Since Ms Jouhki satisfied the requirements in the notice of
applicant by letter dated 20 January 1997, not to proceed              competition for taking part in the competition, and since
with the complaint lodged by the applicant against the                 her taking part was nevertheless refused with no
Belgian National Railway Company ( SNCB ) for failing to               substantial grounds, the selection board's refusal is
comply with Community law in awarding a contract for                   erroneous as being unfounded. The decision made in
the supply of concrete sleepers for use on high-speed train            response to Ms Jouhki's demand for her application to be
lines — the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber ),                 reconsidered by the selection board is likewise erroneous,
                                                                       inasmuch as the earlier erroneous decision was not
composed of A. Saggio, President, V. Tiili and R. M.                   corrected .
Moura Ramos, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an
order on 29 September 1997, the operative part of which
is as follows :                                                        The time-limit under Article 90 of the Staff Regulations
                                                                       for replying to Ms Jouhki's complaint expired on 17 April
1 . The application is dismissed as inadmissible.                      1997 .
2 . There is no need to rule on the application for leave to           Ms Jouhki 's complaint was not responded to within the
     intervene .
                                                                       time-limit. The EU administration informed her, however,
                                                                       that a reply to her complaint was still being prepared and
3 . The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.                         that the complaint would be dealt with on 17 July 1997,
                                                                       that is, the same day on which the time-limit for an
(') OJ C 166 , 31 . 5 . 1997.                                          application by Ms Jouhki to the Court of First Instance
                                                                       expired.
                                                                       On the above grounds, Ms Jouhki has an interest in
                                                                       bringing proceedings, in that her complaint was rejected
                                                                       or that it was not decided by 17 July 1997 at the latest.
Action brought on 14 July 1997 by Sari Kristiina Jouhki
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                          ( Case T-215/97)
                            ( 97/C 357/54 )
                 (Language of the case: Finnish)                       Action brought on 5 August 1997 by New Europe
                                                                       Consulting Ltd and M. P. Brown against the Commission
An action against the Commission of the European                                      of the European Communities
Communities was brought before the Court of First                                            ( Case T-231/97)
Instance of the European Communities on 14 July 1997
by Sari Kristiina Jouhki, of Pyhajarvi, Finland, represented                                   ( 97/C 357/55 )
by Harri Ojala, lawyer, of Oulu .
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European
— declare that she was qualified and hence entitled to                 Communities was brought before the Court of First
     take part in open competition COM/B/973 and to be                 Instance of the European Communities on 5 August 1997
     accepted for the post advertised as vacant,                       by New Europe Consulting Ltd and M. P. Brown, of
                                                                       Dublin, represented by A. and B. De Roeck, of the
— declare the competition referred to in point 1 above                 Antwerp Bar.
     null and void and set a new time-limit for taking part
     in the competition, and
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
— order the European Community to reimburse her costs
     in full together with interest for late payment in                — declare the claims of both applicants admissible and
     accordance with Paragraph 4 ( 3 ) of the Finnish                      well-founded,
     Korkolaki ( Law on interest) to run from one month
     from the date of judgment.
                                                                       — in that regard, order the defendant, the European
                                                                           Commission, to pay             compensation totalling
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                        ECU 1 400 000, together with compensatory interest
                                                                           thereon from the date of the event giving rise to the
The selection board appointed by Directorate-General IX                    damage, namely 12 April 1995 , and legal interest from
of the Commission ( Personnel and Administration) refused                  the date of the judgment to be delivered in the case,


title: Case T-283/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 28 April 2009 — Tailor v OHIM (Representation of a right pocket) (Community trade mark — Application for Community figurative mark representing a right pocket — Absolute ground for refusal — Absence of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Action manifestly devoid of any legal basis)

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/39

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 28 April 2009 — Tailor v OHIM (Representation of a right pocket)
   (Case T-283/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for Community figurative mark representing a right pocket - Absolute ground for refusal - Absence of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Action manifestly devoid of any legal basis)
   2009/C 153/76
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Tom Tailor GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: S.O. Gillert, K. Vanden Bossche and F. Schiwek, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 May 2007 (Case R 668/2006-1), concerning registration as a Community trade mark of a figurative sign representing a right pocket.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action as manifestly devoid of any legal basis;

               2.

               Orders Tom Tailor GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 235, 6.10.2007.


title: Case C-122/04: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of  23 February 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v European Parliament, Council of the European Union (Powers of the Commission — Procedures for the exercise of implementing powers — Implementation of the Forest Focus programme)

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/9

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 23 February 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v European Parliament, Council of the European Union
   (Case C-122/04) (1)

   (Powers of the Commission - Procedures for the exercise of implementing powers - Implementation of the Forest Focus programme)
   (2006/C 131/16)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by C.-F. Durand and M. van Beek, acting as Agents)

      Defendants: European Parliament (represented by K. Bradley and M. Gómez-Leal), Council of the European Union (represented by I. Díez Parra and M. Balta, acting as Agents)

      Interveners: Kingdom of Spain (represented by M. Muñoz Pérez, Agent), Republic of Finland (represented by T. Pynnä, Agent)

      Re:
   Annulment of Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2152/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 concerning monitoring of forests and environmental interactions in the Community (Forest Focus) (OJ 2003 L 324, p. 1), in so far as it makes the adoption of the implementing measures for the Forest Focus Programme subject to the regulatory procedure set out in Article 5 of Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (OJ 1999 L 184, p. 23) — Limit on the Council's choice between the implementing procedures laid down by Decision 1999/468/EC
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain and the Republic of Finland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 94, 17.04.2004.


title: Case T-134/11: Judgment of the General Court of 28 October 2015 — Al-Faqih and Others v Commission (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures directed against persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban — Freezing of funds — Fundamental rights — Right to effective judicial protection)

text:
               21.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 429/14

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 October 2015 — Al-Faqih and Others v Commission
   (Case T-134/11) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures directed against persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban - Freezing of funds - Fundamental rights - Right to effective judicial protection))
   (2015/C 429/18)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Al-Bashir Mohammed Al-Faqih (Birmingham, United Kingdom); Ghunia Abdrabbah (Birmingham); Taher Nasuf (Manchester, United Kingdom) and Sanabel Relief Agency Ltd (Birmingham) (represented by: E. Grieves, Barrister, and N. Garcia-Lora, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by S. Boelaert, M. Konstantinidis, E. Paasivirta and T. Scharf, and subsequently by M. Konstantinidis, E. Paasivirta and T. Scharf, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by E. Finnegan, R. Szostak and G. Étienne, and subsequently by E. Finnegan and G. Étienne, acting as Agents) and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented initially by E. Jenkinson, and subsequently by L. Christie, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1138/2010 of 7 December 2010 amending for the 140th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban (OJ 2010 L 322, p. 4), and of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1139/2010 of 7 December 2010 amending for the 141st time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban (OJ 2010 L 322, p. 6), in so far as those measures concern the applicants.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Al-Bashir Mohammed Al-Faqih, Mr Ghunia Abdrabbah and Mr Taher Nasuf to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

               3.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 130, 30.4.2011.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber)  12 January 2006  in Case C-132/04 Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Social policy — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Directive 89/391/EEC — Scope — Non-civilian personnel in public authorities — Armed forces and police — Included)

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/4

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   12 January 2006
   in Case C-132/04 Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Social policy - Protection of the safety and health of workers - Directive 89/391/EEC - Scope - Non-civilian personnel in public authorities - Armed forces and police - Included)
   (2006/C 60/07)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   In Case C-132/04 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: L. Escobar Guerrero and H. Kreppel) v Kingdom of Spain (Agent: M. Muñoz Pérez) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, J. Makarczyk, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), R. Silva Lapuerta and P. Kūris, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 January 2006, in which it:

               1.

               Declared that, by failing to transpose in their entirety into its national legislation Article 2(1) and (2) and Article 4 of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvement in the safety and health of workers at work as regards non-civilian personnel in public authorities, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Ordered the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 106 of 30.04.2004


title: Case C-223/09: Order of the President of the Court of 11 March 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/23

         Order of the President of the Court of 11 March 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-223/09) (1)

   2010/C 148/38

      Language of the case: Polish

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

      (1)  OJ C 233, 26.09.2009.


title: Case C-238/16: Order of the President of the Court of 18 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Münster — Germany) — X v Finanzamt I

text:
               24.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/13

         Order of the President of the Court of 18 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Münster — Germany) — X v Finanzamt I
   (Case C-238/16) (1)

   (2017/C 129/19)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 343, 19.9.2016.


title: Case F-119/11: Action brought on 11 November 2011 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/71

      Action brought on 11 November 2011 — ZZ v Commission
      (Case F-119/11)
      (2012/C 25/138)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: ZZ (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

      Application for annulment of the implied decision of the Commission rejecting the applicant’s claim for (i) compensation for the damage purportedly sustained on account of the fact that agents of the Commission entered his official lodgings in Luanda on 14, 16 and 19 March 2002 and (ii) communication to him of the copies of the photographs taken on that occasion and the destruction of all documentation relating to that event

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Civil Service Tribunal should:

                  —

                  declare legally non-existent — or, in the alternative, annul — the decision, whatever the form in which it was adopted, by which the Commission rejected the claim of 6 September 2010 sent by the applicant to the appointing authority of the Commission;

                  —

                     quatenus oportet, declare legally non-existent — or, in the alternative, annul — the measure, whatever the form in which it was adopted, by which the Commission rejected the complaint against the decision rejecting the claim of 6 September 2010 and the application of 20 March 2011 for annulment of that decision;

                  —

                  confirm in each case as fact that agents or delegates of the Commission, or delegates of agents of the Commission, acted as follows on 14 March 2002, on 16 March 2002 and on 19 March 2002, against the wishes of the applicant that none of the following should take place at any time whatsoever, and without the applicant being informed, even briefly, and indeed without the applicant being aware that any of the following occurred: (i) they entered treacherously, on a number of occasions, the official lodgings assigned to the applicant earlier by the Commission and located in Luanda (Angola), in the Bairro Azul area, at 101-103 Rua Americo Julio de Carvalho, either by breaking and entering or by means of keys either retained unlawfully or in some way unlawfully used; and (ii) took photographs inside the aforementioned lodgings;

                  —

                  confirm the unlawful nature of each of the facts giving rise to damage;

                  —

                  declare that each of the facts giving rise to the damage in question is unlawful;

                  —

                  order the Commission to carry out the physical destruction of the photographs;

                  —

                  order the Commission to notify the applicant in writing that the physical destruction of the photographs has been carried out, at the same time providing the applicant with an abundance of substantive detail in that regard, including, in particular, the date on which the physical destruction was carried out, the place where this was done, and the person who performed the act of physical destruction;

                  —

                  order the Commission to make available to the applicant, by way of compensation for the damage in question, the sum of EUR 20 000, or such greater or lesser sum as the Civil Service Tribunal may deem to be just and fair, that is to say: (i) EUR 10 000 for the damage caused by the unlawful entry of his lodgings on 14 March 2002, 16 March 2002 and 19 March 2002; and (ii) EUR 10 000 for the damage caused by the unlawful taking of photographs;

                  —

                  order the Commission to make available to the applicant, with effect from the day following that on which the claim of 6 September 2010 arrived at the Commission and until the date of actual payment of the sum of EUR 20 000, the interest on that sum, applied at the rate of 10 % per annum and with annual capitalisation;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case F-20/14: Action brought on 10 March 2014  — ZZ v EESC

text:
               10.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/55

         Action brought on 10 March 2014 — ZZ v EESC
   (Case F-20/14)
   2014/C 175/78
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: N. Nikolajsen, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the decision of the EESC rejecting the applicant’s request to be entitled to early retirement without a reduction of his pension rights, pursuant to Article 9(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decision of the EESC refusing to allow the applicant to benefit, in respect of 2013, from Article 9(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, in the version applicable until 31 December 2013;

               —

               order the EESC to pay the costs.


title: Case T-384/14: Judgment of the General Court 12 May 2016 — Italy v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Cattle and sheep sectors — Flat-rate financial correction — One-off correction — Articles 48 and 69 of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 — Special entitlements — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               27.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/9

         Judgment of the General Court 12 May 2016 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-384/14) (1)

   ((EAGGF - Guarantee Section - EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Cattle and sheep sectors - Flat-rate financial correction - One-off correction - Articles 48 and 69 of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 - Special entitlements - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2016/C 232/11)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri and B. Tidore, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Rossi and D. Bianchi, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for partial annulment of Commission Implementing Decision 2014/191/EU of 4 April 2014 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2014 L 104, p. 43), in so far as it excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Italian Republic.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 235, 21.7.2014.


title: Case T-45/13: Action brought on 29 January 2013 — Rose Vision and Seseña v Commission

text:
               22.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/10

         Action brought on 29 January 2013 — Rose Vision and Seseña v Commission
   (Case T-45/13)
   2013/C 178/19
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Rose Vision, SL (Seseña, Spain) and Julián Seseña (Pozuelo de Alarcón, Spain) (represented by: M. Muñiz Bernuy and A. Alonso Villa, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the decisions to suspend agreed payments;

               —

               remove Rose Vision, SL from the Central Exclusion Database and the Early Warning System (EWS);

               —

               order the defendant to pay EUR 5 000 624 in damages.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   One of the two applicants, an undertaking principally engaged in telecommunications, research and development (R&D) and consultancy services in telecommunications, research and innovation, has worked on numerous projects with the Commission since 2002.
   This action has arisen out of two audits of the applicant undertaking carried out between February and April 2011. The audit reports allege a series of failures and irregularities on the part of the applicant undertaking, which were the basis for the suspension of outstanding payments.
   The applicants claim that those allegations do not reflect reality. They maintain that it can in fact be seen from a careful reading of one of the two audit reports mentioned above that the aim informing the report was to make an unjustified attack on the applicants for the purpose of discrediting them. In this way, the audit report is mostly based on unverified information. The Commission’s approach is more akin to an investigative, supervisory or inspection-related approach than to that of an audit, in which information must be verified and the reliability of sources ensured.
   All of this has caused the applicant undertaking serious harm, not only of an economic nature but also to its professional reputation and to its credibility.


title: Case T-669/16 P: Appeal brought on 21 September 2016 by Carlo De Nicola against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 July 2016 in Case F-82/15, De Nicola v EIB

text:
               7.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 410/25

         Appeal brought on 21 September 2016 by Carlo De Nicola against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 July 2016 in Case F-82/15, De Nicola v EIB
   (Case T-669/16 P)
   (2016/C 410/36)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Carlo De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by G. Ferabecoli, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank (EIB)

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               uphold the present appeal and, partially reversing the judgment under appeal, annul point 2 of the operative part, together with paragraphs 12, 13, 24, 55 to 57, 123 to 135 and 157 to 165 of the judgment itself;

               —

               consequently, order the respondent to compensate Mr De Nicola for the damage suffered, as requested in the application initiating proceedings.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The present appeal is brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 July 2016, which dismissed the proceedings brought by the appellant, concerning, in essence, on the one hand, the annulment of the decision of 4 December 2014, by which the respondent denied the appellant the reimbursement of certain medical expenses, and, on the other hand, the award by the respondent and the European Union of compensation for the damage he allegedly suffered.
   In support of his appeal, the appellant disputes the findings on the scientific benefits of laser therapy in the judgment under appeal.
   The appellant claims furthermore that the conditions relating to compensation for damage, whether material or non-material, are met in the present case.


title: Case T-776/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — Red Lemon v EUIPO — Lidl Stiftung (ABTRONICX2) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark ABTRONICX2 — Earlier EU word mark TRONIC — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Minimal inherent distinctiveness of the earlier mark — Likelihood of confusion)

text:
               27.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — Red Lemon v EUIPO — Lidl Stiftung (ABTRONICX2)
   (Case T-776/14) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark ABTRONICX2 - Earlier EU word mark TRONIC - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Minimal inherent distinctiveness of the earlier mark - Likelihood of confusion))
   (2016/C 232/20)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Red Lemon Inc. (Hong Kong, China) (represented by: T. Wieland and S. Müller, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Walicka, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 September 2014 (Case R 2078/2013-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG and Red Lemon Inc.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Red Lemon Inc. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.


title: Action brought on 5 July 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic (Case C-232/95)

text:
23 . 9 . 95          | EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 248/3
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       flour-based biscuits with an average flour content of
                       ( Second Chamber)                                   46 % of the weight of the constituents, and intended for
                                                                           baking by the end-user cannot ' qualify for aid.
                       of 11 August 1995
in Case C-12/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the         (')   OJ No  C 59 , 26 . 2 . 1994 .
Oberlandesgericht, Hamm): Uelzena Milchwerke eG v.                   (2)   OJ No  L 55 , 1 . 3 . 1988 , p . 31 .
            Willi Antpöhler GmbH & Co. KG ( ! )                      (3 )  OJ No  L 111 , 22 . 4 . 1989 , p . 24 .
(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 4 of                   (4 )  OJ No  L 112 , 4 . 5 . 1991 , p . 57 .
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 570/88 — Aid for
cream, butter, and concentrated butter — Conditions
governing the grant of aid — Composition of the
                             product)
                          ( 95/C 248/04 )
                                                                     Action brought on 5 July 1995 by the Commission of the
                (Language of the case: German)                            European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                                                                                ( Case C-232/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 248/05 )
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                     the Court of Justice on 5 July 1995 by the Commission
In Case C-12/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177 of        of the European Communities, represented by Maria
the EC Treaty from the Oberlandesgericht ( Higher Regional           Kontou-Durande, of its Legal Service, with an address for
Court ) Hamm ( Germany ) for a preliminary ruling in the             service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la
proceedings pending before that court between Uelzena                Cruz, also of its Legal Service , Wagner Centre .
Milchwerke eG and Willi Antpohler GmbH & Co . KG —
on the interpretation of Article 4 of Commission Regulation          The applicant claims that the Court should :
( EEC ) No 570/88 of 16 February 1988 on the sale of butter
at reduced prices and the grant of aid for cream, butter and         ( 1 ) declare that,
concentrated butter of use in the manufacture of pastry
products, ice-cream and other foodstuffs (2 ), as amended
by Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 1048/89 (-1 ) and                       — by failing to establish programmes to include
Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 1157/91 (4 ) — the Court                       quality objectives and time-limits for achieving
( Second Chamber ), composed of: F. A. Schockweiler,                            those objectives, in order to reduce pollution of
President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini ( Rapporteur ) and                      Lake Vegoritis and the Soulos River by the
G. Hirsch, Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate General; H. von                        dangerous substances within List II of Directive
Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a                      76/464/EEC ( ] ) of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused
judgment on 11 August 1995 , in which it rules :                                by certain dangerous substances discharged into the
                                                                                aquatic environment of the Community, and
A. Article 4 ( 1 ), Formula A (a), of Commission Regulation                 — by not subjecting discharges from industries and
     (EEC) No 570/88 of 16 February 1988 on the sale of                         installations in the area which are liable to contain
     butter at reduced prices and the grant of aid for cream,                   substances within List II to prior authorization
     butter and concentrated butter for use in the                              by the competent authority in which emission
     manufacture of pastry products, ice-cream and other                        standards are to be laid down,
     foodstuffs, as amended by Commission Regulation
     (EEC) No 1 1 57/91 , must be interpreted as meaning that               the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
     butter from intervention stocks incorporated into                      under the Treaty and Council Directive 76/464/EEC, in
     deep-frozen, oven-ready sticks of short pastry made                    particular Articles 2 and 7 thereof;
     With butter, in the form of flour-based biscuits with an
     average flour content of 46 % of the weight of the              ( 2 ) order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs .
     constituents, and intended for baking by the end-user
     cannot qualify for aid. The flour content ofsuch sticks is
     not relevant for the purposes of the application of that        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     provision;
                                                                     following complaints on the matter, the Commission
                                                                     requested information from the Greek authorities as to the
2 . Article 4 (3), Formula C (a) (1 ), of Regulation (EEC)           quality of water of Lake Vegoritis and the Soulos River and
     No 570/88, as amended by Commission Regulation                  the likely sources of their pollution . Since it was not satisfied
     (EEC) No 1048/89 and Commission Regulation (EEC)                by the reply given by the Greek authorities, in a reasoned
     No 1 157/91 , must be interpreted as meaning that butter        opinion of 16 October 1992 it called upon them to apply
     incorporated into deep-frozen, oven-ready sticks of             within two months Directives 76/464/EEC, 75/442/EEC
     short pastry made with butter, in the form of                   and 78/319/EEC in respect of the said waters. In answer to
 ---pagebreak--- No C 248/4              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     23 . 9 . 95
the reasoned opinion, the Greek authorities forwarded a               reduce pollution of the waters of the Pagassitikos Gulf by
technical report by the Ministry of the Environment, Town             the substances within List II . It should, in addition, have
and Country Planning and Public Works in which details                established quality objectives for the waters of the Gulf in
were set out of the measures taken . That reply did not               question and time-limits for achieving those objectives, and
satisfy the Commission , especially as concerns Directive             it should also have set as a condition for all discharges liable
76/464/EEC . In particular the Commission considered that             to contain any of the substances within List II the issue of
the measures provided for in Article 7 of the Directive, that         prior authorization in which emission standards are to be
is to say in respect of quality objectives and authorization of       laid down .
discharges in which emission standards are to be laid down,
as specified in Article 7 ( 2 ), were completely absent . For         From the evidence and studies available to the Commission
those reasons the Court is requested to declare that the              it would appear that the Greek authorities have not taken
Hellenic Republic is in breach of its obligations under the           the appropriate measures to control and limit the sources of
said Directive .                                                      pollution of the Pagassitikos Gulf, which is an enclosed gulf
                                                                      with a very small outlet into the Aegean and very slow
                                                                      renewal of water .
(') OJ No L 129 , 18 . 5 . 1976 , p . 23 .
                                                                      The Greek authorities accept that there are no specialized
                                                                      programmes and refer to the fact that they have asked the
                                                                      University of the Aegean to undertake a study of the sources
                                                                      discharging toxic substances within List II of Directive
                                                                      76/464/EEC .
Action brought on 5 July 1995 by the Commission of the
     European Communities against the Hellehic Republic               Consequently the Commission notes that the Greek
                         ( Case C-233/95 )                            authorities are in a purely preliminary stage as regards the
                                                                      measures which they are obliged to take under Article 7 of
                           ( 95/C 248/06 )                            the above Directive and accordingly have not fulfilled their
                                                                      obligations thereunder.
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
 the Court of Justice on 5 July 1995 by the Commission                 ( ] ) OJ No L 129 , 18 . 5 . 1976 , p . 23 .
 of the European Communities, represented by Maria
 Kondou-Durande, of its Legal Service , with an address for
 service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la
 Cruz, also of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre .
 The applicant claims that the Court:                                 Action brought on 6 July 1995 by the Commission of the
                                                                            European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
 ( 1 ) should declare that,                                                                      ( Case C-236/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 248/07)
        — by failing to establish programmes to include
            quality objectives and to lay down time-limits for
            achieving those objectives, in order to reduce             An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                       the Court of Justice on 6 July 1995 by the Commission of
            pollution of the waters of the Pagassitikos Gulf
            by the substances within List II of Directive              the European Communities, represented by Dimitrios
            76/464/EEC (*) of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused           Gouloussis, of its Legal Service, with an address for service
                                                                       in Luxembourg at the officie of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
            by certain dangerous substances discharged into the
                                                                        also of its Legal Service , Wagner Centre .
            aquatic environment of the Community, and
        — by not subjecting discharges into the Pagassitikos           The applicant claims that the Court should:
            Gulf which are liable to contain substances within
            List II to prior authorization by the competent             ( 1 ) declare that by failing to adopt and, in the alternative,
            authority in which emission standards are to be laid              to notify to the Commission within the prescribed
            down,                                                             period the laws, regulations and administrative
                                                                              provisions necessary to comply fully with Council
        the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations            Directive 89/665/EEC (*) of 21 December 1989 on
        under the Treaty and Article 7 of Council Directive                   the coordination of the laws, regulations and
        76/464/EEC;                                                           administrative provisions relating to the application of
                                                                               review procedures to the award of public supply and
  ( 2 ) order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs .                         public works contracts, in particular, by not adopting
                                                                               and, in the alternative, by not notifying to the
                                                                               Commission within the prescribed period the necessary
  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                          laws, regulations and administrative provisions
                                                                               relating to the award of public supply contracts, the
  under Article 7 of Directive 76/464/EEC the Republic of                      Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
  Greece should have established programmes in order to                        under the EC Treaty;


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 11 March 2004 In Case C-182/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf): Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungsgesellschaft mbH v Werner Jäger

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/1

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   11 March 2004
   In Case C-182/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf): Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungsgesellschaft mbH v Werner Jäger (1)

   (Plant varieties - System of protection - Article 14(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 and Articles 3(2) and 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1768/95 - Organisation of holders - Meaning - Organisation's obligation to act only for its members - Use by farmers of the product of the harvest - Obligation to provide information to the holder of the Community right)
   (2004/C 94/02)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-182/01: References to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungsgesellschaft mbH and Werner Jäger, on the interpretation of the sixth indent of Article 14(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights (OJ 1994 L 227, p. 1) and of Articles 3(2) and 8 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1768/95 of 24 July 1995 implementing rules on the agricultural exemption provided for in Article 14(3) of Regulation No 2100/94 (OJ 1995 L 173, p. 14), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans and S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 March 2004, in which it has ruled:

               1.

               Article 3(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1768/95 of 24 July 1995 implementing rules on the agricultural exemption provided for in Article 14(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 on Community plant variety rights must be interpreted as meaning that a limited company is capable of constituting an ‘organisation of holders’ of plant variety rights for the purposes of that provision. Such an organisation may invoke the rights of holders who are members of another organisation where the other organisation is itself a member of the first organisation. However, it may not invoke the rights of holders who, although not members of the first organisation or of another organisation which is, have appointed it to safeguard their interests in return for a consideration;

               2.

               The provisions of the sixth indent of Article 14(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights in conjunction with Article 8(2) of Regulation No 1768/95 cannot be construed as meaning that the holder of a Community plant variety right can require a farmer to provide the information specified in those provisions where there is no indication that the farmer has used or will use, for propagating purposes in the field, on his own holding, the product of the harvest obtained by planting, on his own holding, propagating material of a variety other than a hybrid or synthetic variety which is covered by that right and belongs to one of the agricultural plant species listed in Article 14(2) of Regulation No 2100/94.

      (1)  OJ C 200 of 14.07.2001.


title: Case C-268/13: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu — Romania) — Elena Petru v Casa Județeană de Asigurări de Sănătate Sibiu, Casa Națională de Asigurări de Sănătate (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Article 22(2), second subparagraph — Health insurance — Hospital treatment provided in another Member State — Prior authorisation refused — Lack of medication and basic medical supplies and infrastructure)

text:
               8.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 439/5

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu — Romania) — Elena Petru v Casa Județeană de Asigurări de Sănătate Sibiu, Casa Națională de Asigurări de Sănătate
   (Case C-268/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 22(2), second subparagraph - Health insurance - Hospital treatment provided in another Member State - Prior authorisation refused - Lack of medication and basic medical supplies and infrastructure))
   (2014/C 439/07)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Tribunalul Sibiu

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Elena Petru

      Defendants: Casa Județeană de Asigurări de Sănătate Sibiu, Casa Națională de Asigurări de Sănătate

      Operative part of the judgment

   The second subparagraph of Article 22(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 592/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008, must be interpreted as meaning that the authorisation necessary under Article 22(1)(c)(i) of that regulation cannot be refused where it is because of a lack of medication and basic medical supplies and infrastructure that the hospital care concerned cannot be provided in good time in the insured person’s Member State of residence. The question whether that is impossible must be determined by reference to all the hospital establishments in that Member State that are capable of providing the treatment in question and by reference to the period within which the treatment could be obtained in good time.

      (1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.


title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 229, 17.9.2005

text:
               1.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/13

         (2005/C 243/21)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 229, 17.9.2005

   Past publications

      OJ C 217, 3.9.2005

      OJ C 205, 20.8.2005

      OJ C 193, 6.8.2005

      OJ C 182, 23.7.2005

      OJ C 171, 9.7.2005

      OJ C 155, 25.6.2005

   These texts are available on:

               EUR-Lex:http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex

               CELEX:http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Case C-329/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Wien (Austria) lodged on 17 June 2013 — Ferdinand Stefan

text:
               21.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/2

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Wien (Austria) lodged on 17 June 2013 — Ferdinand Stefan
   (Case C-329/13)
   2013/C 274/04
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Wien

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ferdinand Stefan

      Defendant: Federal Minister for Agriculture, Forestry, the Environment and Water Management

      Questions referred

               1.

               As regards the validity of Environmental Information Directive 2003/4/EC: (1)

               Pursuant to subparagraph (b) of the first sentence of Article 267 TFEU, is Directive 2003/4/EC valid in its entirety and/or are all parts of Directive 2003/4/EC valid, in particular having regard to the requirements of the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?

               2.

               As regards the interpretation of Environmental Information Directive 2003/4/EC:
               In the event that the Court of Justice of the European Union affirms the validity of Directive 2003/4/EC in its entirety or the validity of parts of Directive 2003/4/EC, the Court of Justice is requested, pursuant to subparagraphs (a) and (b) of the first sentence of Article 267 TFEU, to give a ruling on the extent to which, and the assumptions on the basis of which, the provisions of the Environmental Information Directive are compatible with the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the requirements of Article 6 TEU.

      (1)  Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC (OJ 2003 L 41, p. 26).


title: Case C-203/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Català de Contractes del Sector Públic (Spain) lodged on 23 April 2014  — Consorci Sanitari del Maresme v Corporació de Salut del Maresme i la Selva

text:
               21.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Català de Contractes del Sector Públic (Spain) lodged on 23 April 2014 — Consorci Sanitari del Maresme v Corporació de Salut del Maresme i la Selva
   (Case C-203/14)
   2014/C 235/07
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Català de Contractes del Sector Públic

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Consorci Sanitari del Maresme

      Defendant: Corporació de Salut del Maresme i la Selva

      Questions referred

               1)

               For the purposes of Directive 2004/18/EC (1) of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, must public administrations be regarded as public entities?

               2)

               If so, for the purposes of Directive 2004/18/EC of 31 March 2004, must public administrations be regarded as economic operators and accordingly as being permitted to participate in public tendering procedures?

               3)

               If so, for the purposes of Directive 2004/18/EC of 31 March 2004, may and must public administrations be included in the official lists of approved contractors, suppliers or service providers or be certified by certification bodies established under public or private law, known under Spanish national law as a business classification system?

               4)

               For the purposes of Directive 2004/18/EC of 31 March 2004, has Royal Legislative Decree 3/2011 of 14 November 2011 adopting the consolidated text of the Law on Public Sector Contracts incorrectly transposed that directive into Spanish law and, if that is the case, has the Spanish legislature, through Articles 62 and 65 of Royal Legislative Decree 3/2011 of 14 November 2011, limited the access of public administrations to the business classification registers?

               5)

               If public administrations may participate in tenders but may not be accepted for business classification — in accordance with Directive 2004/18/EC of 31 March 2004 — by what means may they establish their eligibility to contract?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114.


title: Case T-465/11: Action brought on 26 August 2011 — Globula v Commission

text:
               15.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/8

         Action brought on 26 August 2011 — Globula v Commission
   (Case T-465/11)
   2011/C 305/10
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Globula a.s. (Hodonín, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Petite, D. Paemen, A. Tomtsis, D. Koláček and P. Zákoucký, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Commission’s Decision dated 27 June 2011 ordering the Czech Republic to withdraw the notified decision of the Czech Ministry of Industry and Trade of 26 October 2010 granting the applicant temporary exemption from the obligation to provide negotiated third party access to a planned Underground Gas Storage Facility in Dambořice (C(2011) 4509); and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

      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 defendant wrongly applied Article 36(9) of the Third Gas Directive (1), instead of applying Article 22(4) of the Second Gas Directive (2). As a result, the defendant incorrectly issued the contested decision in the form of a binding decision instead of an informal request. Furthermore, relying on the time period under Article 36(9) of the Third Gas Directive the defendant issued the contested decision late, as under the Second Gas Directive the original time period could only be extended by one additional month. As a result the contested decision is of no legal effect.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed the applicant's legitimate expectations when it first provided precise, unconditional and consistent assurances as to when and under what circumstances the notified decision of the Czech Ministry of Industry and Trade would become final, later unequivocally reconfirmed this and then, unexpectedly, issued the contested decision inconsistent with its previous statements.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed the Treaties and the rules of law relating to their application. In this regard, the contested decision applied incorrect substantive law. The applicant contends that the applicable substantive rules in light of which the Commission should have reviewed the notified decision are to be found in Article 22 of the Second Gas Directive. The Commission therefore infringed the principles of legal certainty and the applicant's legitimate expectations.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error in assessment of the facts when it wrongly rejected the explanation offered by the Czech Ministry of Industry and Trade that the applicant was and remains unable to find a reliable long-term partner under the storage capacity allocation rules of Czech law, applicable both at the time when the applicant filed the application for an exemption to the Ministry as well as today.

      (1)  Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 94)

      (2)  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 (OJ 2003 L 176, p. 57)


title: Case C-496/13 P: Order of the Court of 22 January 2015 — GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Villiger Söhne GmbH (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Figurative mark in colour, consisting of the verbal components ‘LIBERTE american blend’ on a red background — Opposition by the holder of the Community trade mark ‘La LIBERTAD’ — Refusal of registration)

text:
               4.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 146/7

         Order of the Court of 22 January 2015 — GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Villiger Söhne GmbH
   (Case C-496/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Figurative mark in colour, consisting of the verbal components ‘LIBERTE american blend’ on a red background - Opposition by the holder of the Community trade mark ‘La LIBERTAD’ - Refusal of registration))
   (2015/C 146/10)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH (represented by: I. Memmler and Schulz, Rechtsanwältinnen)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, Agent), Villiger Söhne GmbH (represented by: H. MacKenzie, Rechtsanwältin)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 313, 26.10.2013.


title: Case C-157/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden lodged on 16 April 2008 — E.H.A. Passenheim-van Schoot v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/17

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden lodged on 16 April 2008 — E.H.A. Passenheim-van Schoot v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-157/08)
   (2008/C 171/30)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: E.H.A. Passenheim-van Schoot

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   Question referred
   Must Articles 49 and 56 EC be interpreted to mean that, where foreign savings balances or income therefrom are not disclosed to the tax authority of a Member State, those articles do not prevent that Member State from applying legislation which, to compensate for the lack of effective means of monitoring foreign balances, provides for a recovery period of twelve years, whereas a recovery period of five years applies in the case of savings balances or income therefrom held in the Member State where such effective means do in fact exist?


title: Joined Cases T-264/10 and T-266/10: Judgment of the General Court of 21 June 2012 — Spain v Commission (Cohesion Fund and ERDF operational programme managed by Spain (ESF Combating discrimination 2007-2013 operational programme) — Interim payment application — Decision to suspend the payment deadline because of a significant deficiency in the operation of management and control systems — Actions for annulment — Admissibility — Article 87(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006)

text:
               28.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 227/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 June 2012 — Spain v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-264/10 and T-266/10) (1)

   (Cohesion Fund and ERDF operational programme managed by Spain (ESF Combating discrimination 2007-2013 operational programme) - Interim payment application - Decision to suspend the payment deadline because of a significant deficiency in the operation of management and control systems - Actions for annulment - Admissibility - Article 87(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006)
   2012/C 227/26
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, agent)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Urraca Caviedes and B. Conte, agents)

      Re:

   Actions brought against the Commission decisions of 10 May (T-264/10) and 11 May 2010 (T-266/10) informing the Spanish authorities of the suspension of the deadline for the settlement of certain interim payment applications submitted by the Kingdom of Spain.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               joins Cases T-264/10 and T-266/10 for the purposes of the judgment;

               2.

               annuls the Commission decisions of 10 May and 11 May 2010 informing the Spanish authorities of the suspension of the deadline for the settlement of certain interim payment applications submitted by the Kingdom of Spain;.

               3.

               rejects the application for acknowledgment that the application for payment of interest for late payment is well founded;

               4.

               declares that that there is no need to adjudicate on the head of claim that the General Court order a measure of organisation of procedure based on Article 64 of its Rules of Procedure;

               5.

               orders the Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 221, 14.8.2010.