title: Case C-246/08: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Sixth VAT Directive — Article 2(1) and Article 4(1) and (2) — Meaning of economic activities — Public legal aid offices — Legal aid services provided in legal proceedings in return for a part contribution paid by the recipient — Meaning of direct link between the service rendered and the consideration received)

text:
               19.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 312/7

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland
   (Case C-246/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Sixth VAT Directive - Article 2(1) and Article 4(1) and (2) - Meaning of ‘economic activities’ - Public legal aid offices - Legal aid services provided in legal proceedings in return for a part contribution paid by the recipient - Meaning of ‘direct link’ between the service rendered and the consideration received)
   2009/C 312/10
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Aalto and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by: A. Guimaraes-Purokoski, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 2(1) and 4(1), (2) and (5) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — National legislation providing for different treatment for VAT purposes of legal advice services depending on whether they are provided by private legal advisers or by advisers working in public legal aid offices — Distortions of competition

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

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

      (1)  OJ C 209, 15.08.2008.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 September 2003 in Case C-331/00: Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities (EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Financial years 1996, 1997 and 1998 — Arable crops — Beef — Aid for early retirement)

text:
1.11.2003                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                               C 264/3
4.    Article 12 EC and the second subparagraph of Article 34(2)                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      EC do not preclude the adoption of measures such as those at
      issue in the main proceedings against a dairy cooperative which
      enjoys market power and exploits that position in a manner                                      (Sixth Chamber)
      contrary to the public interest, even though large vertically-
      integrated dairy cooperatives are permitted to operate in other
      Member States.
                                                                                of 18 September 2003
(1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
                                                                                in Case C-338/00 P: Volkswagen AG (1)
                                                                             (Appeal — Competition — Distribution of motor vehicles
                                                                             — Partitioning of the market — Article 85 of the EC Treaty
                                                                             (now Article 81 EC) — Regulation (EEC) No 123/85
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      — Whether the infringement can be attributed to the
                                                                             undertaking concerned — Right to a fair hearing — Duty to
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                   state reasons — Legal consequences of disclosure to the press
                                                                             — Effect of propriety of the notification on the calculation
                       of 18 September 2003                                                     of the fine — Cross-appeal)
in Case C-331/00: Hellenic Republic v Commission of the
                    European Communities (1)                                                          (2003/C 264/04)
(EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Financial years 1996,
1997 and 1998 — Arable crops — Beef — Aid for early                                             (Language of the case: German)
                              retirement)
                          (2003/C 264/03)                                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                     (Language of the case: Greek)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             In Case C-338/00 P, Volkswagen AG, established in Wolfsburg
                                                                             (Germany) (represented by R. Bechtold): Appeal against the
                                                                             judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
In Case C-331/00, Hellenic Republic (Agents: V. Kontolaimos                  Communities (Fourth Chamber) of 6 July 2000 in Case T-62/
and I. K. Chalkias, as well as by C. Tsiavou) v Commission of                98 Volkswagen v Commission [2000] ECR II-2707, seeking
the European Communities (Agent: M. Condou-Durande):                         to have that judgment set aside in part, the other party to the
Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision                     proceedings being: Commission of the European Communities
2000/449/EC of 5 July 2000 excluding from Community                          (Agent: K. Wiedner, assisted by H.-J. Freund), the Court (Sixth
financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States                  Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the
under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural                     Chamber, C. Gulmann, V. Skouris (Rapporteur), F. Macken
Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2000 L 180,                          and N. Colneric, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate
p. 49), in so far as its concerns the Hellenic Republic, the Court           General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Regis-
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur),                    trar, has given a judgment on 18 September 2003, in which it:
acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber, A. La Pergola,
P. Jann, S. von Bahr and A. Rosas, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate
General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Regis-               1.    Dismisses the main appeal and the cross-appeal;
trar, has given a judgment on 18 September 2003, in which it:
1.    Dismisses the application;                                             2.    Orders each party to bear its own costs.
2.    Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.
(1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.


title: Case T-616/11 P: Appeal brought on 28 November 2011 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 8 September 2011 in Case F-69/10, Marcuccio v Commission

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/65

      Appeal brought on 28 November 2011 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 8 September 2011 in Case F-69/10, Marcuccio v Commission
      (Case T-616/11 P)
      (2012/C 25/124)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by G. Cipressa, lawyer)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

         Form of order sought by the appellant

                  —

                  Grant all the appellant’s claims in the proceedings at first instance;

                  —

                  Order the Commission to reimburse the appellant in respect of the costs incurred by him in the appeal proceedings;

                  —

                  In the alternative, refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal, sitting in a different formation, for a fresh decision on each of the claims referred to in the preceding paragraphs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The present appeal is brought against the order of 8 September 2011 in Case T-69/10 dismissing as manifestly unfounded in law an action seeking, first, annulment of the decision by which the Commission rejected the appellant’s claim for compensation for the damage arising, in his view, as a result of the fact that, in the case giving rise to the judgment of 10 June 2008 in Case T-18/04 Marcucio v Commission, a note relating to the payment of the costs of those proceedings was sent to his legal representative in those proceedings and, second, an order that the Commission pay compensation for the damage.
      The appellant relies on two grounds in support of his appeal.

                  1.

                  First ground, alleging absolute failure to state reasons with regard to the ‘claims seeking compensation’ (between paragraphs 21 and 22 of the order under appeal) and manifest uncertainty, inconsistent reasoning, failure to conduct a proper investigation, distortion and misrepresentation of the facts, self-evident, illogical, irrelevant and unreasonable reasoning, incorrect and unreasonable interpretation and application of the rules of law relating to the incurring of Aquilian liability on the part of the institutions of the European Union, of the concept of the duty to state reasons incumbent on all European Union institutions and the European Union judicature, of the concept of analogy and of the concept of unlawful conduct on the part of a European Union institution.

                  2.

                  Second ground, alleging that the rulings of the court at first instance on ‘the costs of the proceedings and legal costs’ (between paragraphs 28 and 29 of the order under appeal) are unlawful.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 February 2004 in Case C-18/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbejdsret ): Danmarks Rederiforening v LO Landsorganisationen i Sverige (Brussels Convention — Article 5(3) — Jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict — Place where the harmful event occurred — Measure taken by a trade union in a Contracting State against the owner of a ship registered in another Contracting State)

text:
20.3.2004               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                   C 71/3
reimbursement of sums paid under public law by way of an education           the Sixth Chamber, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur),
grant to a maintenance creditor, to whose rights it is subrogated            J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and F. Macken, Judges;
against the maintenance debtor.                                              F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy
                                                                             Registrar, has given a judgment on 5 February 2004, in which
                                                                             it has ruled:
(1) OJ C 31 of 2.2.2002.
                                                                             1.    (a)   Article 5(3) of the Brussels Convention of 27 September
                                                                                1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments
                                                                                in civil and commercial matters, as amended by the
                                                                                Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                   Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom
                                                                                of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by the Convention
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                                 of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic
                                                                                Republic, by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the
                                                                                Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese
                        of 5 February 2004                                               Republic and by the Convention of 29 November 1996
                                                                                on the Accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic
in Case C-18/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling                                      of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, must be
from the Arbejdsret ): Danmarks Rederiforening v LO                                      interpreted as meaning that a case concerning the legality
               Landsorganisationen i Sverige (1)                                         of industrial action, in respect of which exclusive jurisdic-
                                                                                tion belongs, in accordance with the law of the Contracting
                                                                                State concerned, to a court other than the court which has
(Brussels Convention — Article 5(3) — Jurisdiction in                                    jurisdiction to try the claims for compensation for the
matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict — Place where                           damage caused by that industrial action, falls within the
the harmful event occurred — Measure taken by a trade                                    definition of ‘tort, delict or quasi-delict’.
union in a Contracting State against the owner of a ship
            registered in another Contracting State)
                          (2004/C 71/04)                                           (b) For the application of Article 5(3) of the Brussels
                                                                                Convention to a situation such as that in the dispute in
                                                                                the main proceedings, it is sufficient that that industrial
                   (Language of the case: Danish)                                        action is a necessary precondition of sympathy action
                                                                                which may result in harm.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (c)   The application of Article 5(3) of the Brussels Convention
                                                                                is not affected by the fact that the implementation of
                                                                                industrial action was suspended by the party giving notice
In Case C-18/02: Reference to the Court under the Protocol of
                                                                                pending a ruling on its legality.
3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of
the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the
Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters
by the Arbejdsret (Denmark) for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                             2.    In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings,
proceedings pending before that court between Danmarks
                                                                                Article 5(3) must be interpreted as meaning that the damage
Rederiforening, acting on behalf of DFDS Torline A/S, and LO
                                                                                resulting from industrial action taken by a trade union in a
Landsorganisationen i Sverige, acting on behalf of SEKO
                                                                                Contracting State to which a ship registered in another
Sjöfolk Facket för Service och Kommunikation, on the
                                                                                Contracting State sails can be regarded as having occurred in
interpretation of Article 5(3) of the abovementioned Conven-
                                                                                the flag State, with the result that the shipowner can bring an
tion of 27 September 1968 (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 36), as
                                                                                action for damages against that trade union in the flag State.
amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the
Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ 1978
L 304, p. 1, and — amended version — p. 77), by the
Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the
Hellenic Republic (OJ 1982 L 388, p. 1), by the Convention of                (1) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.
26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and
the Portuguese Republic (OJ 1989 L 285, p. 1) and by the
Convention of 29 November 1996 on the Accession of the
Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom
of Sweden (OJ 1997 C 15, p. 1), the Court (Sixth Chamber),
composed of: V. Skouris, acting on behalf of the President of


title: Case T-330/09: Action brought on 19 August 2009 — RapidEye v Commission

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/69

         Action brought on 19 August 2009 — RapidEye v Commission
   (Case T-330/09)
   2009/C 267/127
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: RapidEye AG (Brandenburg an der Havel, Germany) (represented by: T. Jestaedt, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of the Commission’s decision by letter of 9 June 2009 in Case ‘State Aid CP 183/2009 — Germany, RapidEye AG (ex-post monitoring MSR 1998 — N 416/2002)’ in so far as the Commission thereby holds that a State aid intensity of 35 % of the gross grant equivalent and a State aid amount of EUR 44 199 321,36are inadmissible, and that State aid which exceeds either an aid intensity of 30,22 % or a maximum aid amount of EUR 37 316 000 requires a new notification;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its Decision C (2002) 3570 final of 2 October 2002, the Commission authorised State aid in favour of RapidEye AG (State Aid No N 416/2002 — Germany (Brandenburg), aid for RapidEye AG) in accordance with the multisectoral framework on regional aid for large investment projects (1), in which a maximum aid intensity and maximum aid amount are determined (‘Commission decision of 2 October 2002’).
   In the present case, the applicant disputes the Commission letter D (2009) 569 of 9 June 2009 concerning State aid CP 183/2009 — Germany, RapidEye AG (ex-post monitoring MSR 1998 — N 416/2002). In that letter, the German authorities were in particular required to comply with the aid intensity and aid amount authorised by the Commission decision of 2 October 2002 and to confirm that any amounts paid to the beneficiary which exceed those maximum amounts would be recovered.
   In support of its application, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.
   First, the applicant alleges an infringement of Articles 87 and 88 EC and of Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (2), as, in its opinion, State aid up to an aid intensity of 35 % is covered by the Commission decision of 2 October 2002.
   Next, the applicant claims that the defendant misused its powers in so far as, contrary to its decision of 2 October 2002, it refused to authorise aid up to an aid intensity of 35 % without a new notification.
   Third, the applicant asserts an infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations as the applicant, as a result of the aid, made investments on the understanding that aid up to an intensity of 35 % would be authorised.
   Furthermore, in the alternative, an infringement of Article 88(3) EC is claimed. The applicant asserts in this regard that even if the Commission decision of 2 October 2002 is to be interpreted as meaning that it authorises a maximum aid intensity of only 30,22 %, the increase to an intensity of 35 % amounts to an insignificant amendment to the aid, which does not require a new notification.
   Finally, in the alternative, the applicant alleges an infringement of Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 (3). It thereby asserts that, concerning an increase in the amount of aid to 35 % of the maximum aid intensity, the Commission requires a new notification without verifying whether the aid is exempted pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation No 800/2008.

      (1)  OJ 1998 C 107, p. 7.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article [88 EC] (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).

      (3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 of 6 August 2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty (General block exemption Regulation) (OJ 2008 L 214, p. 3).


title: Case C-256/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Crown Office), by order of that court of 14 April 1999, in the case of The Queen against Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte: Cheung Chiu Hung

text:
28.8.1999               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 246/21
Pleas and main arguments                                                1. When determining whether the Applicant, as a British
                                                                           National (Overseas) not entitled (under United Kingdom
                                                                           law) to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, is a ‘person
Breach of Community law (Article 175 of the Treaty estab-                  holding the nationality of a Member State’ and therefore is
lishing the European Community) by misinterpretation thereof               ‘a citizen of the Union’ for the purpose of Article 8 of the
inasmuch as it does not take account of the social context in              EC Treaty:
which it to be applied and infringement of the fundamental
human rights enshrined in Article F(2) of the Treaty on                    (1) What is the effect (if any) as a master of Community
European Union and in general principles of law:                                law of
— right to judicial protection against an excessively formal-                   (a) the United Kingdom’s 1972 Declaration ‘on the
     istic interpretation of the procedural requirements which                      definition of the term “nationals”’ which was
     must be fulfilled prior to the bringing of an action for                       made at the time of Accession to the European
     failure to take action: the totally formalistic interpretation                 Communities and annexed to the Final Act of the
     by the Court of First Instance is incorrect, in view of the                    Accession Conference, and
     conclusions at which it arrives. The Commission knew
     that there was a vessel and crew which had been seized                     (b) the United Kingdom’s 1982 Declaration ‘on the
     under false accusations, since it had sufficient evidence of                   meaning of a UK national’, and
     it in its possession and, moreover, according to findings
     by its own experts, knew such detention to be illegal.                     (c) Declaration No. 2 to the Treaty on European Union
     Nevertheless, it took no action. It is impossible to adhere                    signed on 7 February 1992 that nationality is to be
     to a view so formal that it does not consider the appellant’s                  decided solely by reference to the national law of
     assumption that the Commission is dealing with com-                            the Member State concerned and Member States
     pliance with treaty requirements and taking steps to free                      may declare, for information, who are to be
     the persons illegally arrested to be, in itself, a request for                 considered to be their nationals for Community
     action.                                                                        purposes ?
— misapplication of the right to equal treatment inasmuch as               (2) If and to the extent that the United Kingdom is not
     different situations were treated alike                                    entitled, as a master of Community law, to rely on the
                                                                                Declarations referred to in (1) above, what are the
                                                                                relevant criteria for identifying whether a person has
— breach of the principle of legal certainty which governs the                  nationality of a Member State for the purposes of
     Community legal system and regulates the conduct of the                    Article 8 where domestic law identifies various
     Community institutions                                                     categories of nationality only some of which confer a
                                                                                right to enter and remain in that Member State ?
— right to freedom and safety, honour and moral integrity of
     the crew of the Albor Uno, which is the property of the               (3) In this context, what is the effect of the principle of
     applicant undertaking Pescados Congelados Jogamar SL.                      respect for fundamental human rights under Com-
                                                                                munity law claimed by the Applicant, in particular
                                                                                where the Applicant relies on Article 3(2) of the Fourth
                                                                                Protocol to the European Convention on Human
                                                                                Rights that no one shall be deprived of the right to
                                                                                enter the territory of the State of which he is a national,
                                                                                which has not been ratified by the United Kingdom?
                                                                        2. In the circumstances of the present case does Article 8a(1)
                                                                           of the EC Treaty:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division                          (a) Confer rights on a citizen of the Union to enter and
(Crown Office), by order of that court of 14 April 1999,                        remain in the Member State of which he is a national
in the case of The Queen against Secretary of State for                         even where those rights are otherwise denied by
    the Home Department, ex parte: Cheung Chiu Hung                             national law.
                                                                           (b) Confer rights additional to those which existed under
                         (Case C-256/99)                                        the EC Treaty prior to its amendment by the Treaty on
                                                                                European Union.
                         (1999/C 246/42)                                   (c) Give rise to directly effective rights which citizens of
                                                                                the Union may invoke before national courts and
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          tribunals.
European Communities by an order of the High Court of
Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Crown                   (d) Apply to situations which are wholly internal to a
Office), of 14 April 1999, which was received at the Court                      single Member State?
Registry on 9 July 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
The Queen against Secretary of State for the Home Depart-
ment, ex parte: Cheung Chiu Hung, on the following questions:


title: Case T-342/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  22 February 2006  — Adam v Commission (Officials — Remuneration — Expatriation allowance — Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Definition of  services carried out for another State )

text:
               22.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/12

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 February 2006 — Adam v Commission
   (Case T-342/04) (1)

   (Officials - Remuneration - Expatriation allowance - Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Definition of 'services carried out for another State')
   (2006/C 96/22)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Herta Adam (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and L. Lozano Palacios, Agents)
   Application for
   Annulment of the Commission's decision of 2 September 2003 refusing the applicant the benefit of the expatriation allowance provided for by Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 262, 23.10.2004.


title: Action brought on 1 June 1995 by Karl Fingerhut against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-124/95)

text:
12 . 8 . 95           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                              No C 208/33
Instance of the European Communities on 24 May 1995 by               systematic deduction of sums from his salary by way of
Daniel Chabert, residing at Kraainem ( Belgium ),                    repayment of the sum unduly paid .
represented by Georges Vandersanden, of the Brussels Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 1 Rue Glesener.
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                     Action brought on 1 June 1995 by Karl Fingerhut against
— annul the decision of the Commission of 6 October 1994             the Council of the European Union and the Commission of
    ordering the applicant to repay, in monthly instalments,                          the European Communities
    the sum of Bfrs 215 354 in respect of sums unduly                                      ( Case T-124/95 )
    paid ,                                                                                ( 95/C 208/69 )
— order the repayment of the sums compulsorily deducted                            (Language of the case: German)
    by the Commission from the applicant's salary since
    November 1994 , together with default interest at the
    annual rate of 8 % ,                                             An action against the Council of the European Union and
                                                                     the Commission of the European Communities was brought
— order the defendant to pay all of the costs .                      before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                     Communities on 1 June 1995 by Karl Fingerhut,
                                                                     Twistetal-Gembeck ( Federal Republic of Germany ),
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  represented by Bernd Meisterernst, Mechtild Düsing,
                                                                     Dietrich Manstetten, Frank Schulze and Winfried
The applicant states that, following his divorce, which was          Haneklaus , Rechtsanwälte, Münster, with an address for
pronounced on 1 February 1984 , he requested the                     service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Dupong &
administration to pay to his former wife the sum which               Associés, 14a Rue des Bains .
would have been due to her if she had been the person
entitled to receive the household allowance, namely 5 % of
her basic salary, with the balance being paid into the               The applicant claims that the Court should :
applicant's account; the administration carried out that
request, without objection, from 1 March 1 984 . For ten and         1 . order the defendants jointly to pay to the applicant
a half years, from March 1984 to October 1994, the                       SLOM III compensation for the period from
applicant was thus paid a sum, appearing on his salary slip              15 December 1985 to 29 July 1993 in the amount of
as the household allowance , which was deemed to represent               DM 43 929,06 , together with interest thereon at 8 %
the difference between the household allowance paid to his               from 19 May 1992 , and jointly to pay the costs of the
                                                                         proceedings;
former wife, corresponding to 5 % of her salary, and the
balance due to the applicant. It subsequently transpired that
the Commission did not, during that period , adjust that part        2 . join the present action to that already pending in Case
                                                                         T-77/93 Hülseberg and Others v. Council and
of the allowance which was payable to the applicant's
former wife in line with the alterations in her salary; thus             Commission and also stay the proceedings .
although the allowance was increased in line with the salary
increases of the applicant's former wife, it was paid to her on      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
an unchanging basis only, and the applicant consequently
received a residual sum which grew progressively. The                The pleas in law and arguments are identical to those in Case
                                                                     T-20/95 .
payment was thus indeed irregular, but that irregularity was
entirely due to the defendant and the applicant was not
aware of it .
The applicant bases his case on a single plea , namely,
infringement of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations . The
defendant maintains that it is appropriate in the present case       Action brought on 5 June 1995 by Hassan Belhanbel against
for the undue payment to be recovered , because the                        the Commission of the European Communities
irregularity of the payment was 'patent'. The applicant                                    ( Case T-125/95 )
denies that contention, maintaining that, even if he had                                     ( 95/C 208/70 )
become aware of an increase in the sum paid to him in
respect of the allowance — which he did not — he would
have been legitimately entitled to assume that the amount of                        (Language of the case: French)
that allowance had been increased by an amount greater
than the increase in his former wife's salary, since he was not      An action against the Commission of the European
aware of the extent to which that salary had risen; the error        Communities was brought before the Court of First
on the part of the administration was not, therefore,                Instance on 5 June 1995 by Hassan Belhanbel, of Namur,
patently such that the applicant could not have been                 Belgium,    represented      by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry
unaware of it. Consequently, the applicant considers that            Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an
the defendant has misapplied Article 85 of the Staff                 adress for service in Luxembourg at the office of Fiduciaire
Regulations and that it has acted unlawfully in ordering the         Myson Sari, 1 Rue Glesener.


title: Case T-207/10: Action brought on 6 May 2010 — Deutsche Telekom v Commission

text:
               17.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/20

         Action brought on 6 May 2010 — Deutsche Telekom v Commission
   (Case T-207/10)
   2010/C 195/33
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Deutsche Telekom AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: A. Cordewener and J. Schönfeld, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 8107 final corr. of 28 October 2009 (as amended on 8 December 2009) in relation to the provision for the protection of the legitimate expectations of the Spanish investors detailed in Article 1(2) and (3) thereof;

               —

               An order for the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant challenges Commission Decision C(2009) 8107 final corr. of 28 October 2009, in which the Commission decided that the aid scheme in the form of the tax provision in Article 12(5) of the Spanish Company Tax Act (‘TRLIS’) concerning the tax amortization of financial goodwill for the acquisition of significant shareholdings in foreign companies was, as regards aid granted to beneficiaries which realise intra-Community acquisitions, incompatible with the common market. The contested decision sets out which aid is to be recovered by the Kingdom of Spain.
   In support of its action the applicant submits, first of all, that the tax relief connected with the application of Article 12(5) TRLIS was procedurally unlawful since, contrary to the first sentence of Article 88(3) EC (first sentence of Article 108(3) TFEU), the Kingdom of Spain failed to inform the Commission in advance of the relevant law and, contrary to the prohibition of implementation laid down in the third sentence of Article 88(3) EC (third sentence of Article 108(3) TFEU) actually applied that law. In addition, Article 12(5) TRLIS is to be regarded as substantially unlawful since, in accordance with Article 87(1) EC (Article 107(1) TFEU), the provision is not compatible with the common market and an authorisation under Article 87(2) or (3) EC (Article 107(2) or (3) TFEU) is out of the question.
   Second, in respect of the consequences which follow from a declaration that a national law aid provision is incompatible with Community law, the applicant claims that the Member State concerned is required to recover such aid from the beneficiaries. In that regard, the applicant submits that this fundamental principle is expressly set out, in particular, in the first sentence of Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/99. (1)

   Finally, the applicant claims that, in the present case, there is no reason why recovery should not be ordered as there is no expectation on the part of the Spanish aid recipients which is worthy of protection. In that regard, it submits, inter alia, that the Commission wrongly applied the general principle that primary law takes precedence and the second sentence of Article 14(1) of Regulation No 659/99 in basing the exception which it granted to certain groups of Spanish investors on the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations. The applicant complains, on the one hand, that the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations is not applicable to the beneficiaries since the Spanish State failed to correctly notify the Commission of Article 12(5) TRLIS. On the other hand, it claims that the conditions were not met for granting protection to the legitimate expectations of the beneficiaries. Furthermore, the Community interest in reinstating fair market conditions by recovering the aid granted outweighs the individual interests of the beneficiaries in retaining tax advantages in relation both to past and future years.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article [88 EC] (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).


title: Case T-340/07 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 2 October 2014 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission (Arbitration clause — Contract relating to Community financial support for a project in the framework of the ‘eContent’ programme — Termination of the contract by the Commission — Reimbursement of eligible costs)

text:
               10.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 395/31

      Judgment of the General Court of 2 October 2014 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
      (Case T-340/07 RENV) (1)

      ((Arbitration clause - Contract relating to Community financial support for a project in the framework of the ‘eContent’ programme - Termination of the contract by the Commission - Reimbursement of eligible costs))
      (2014/C 395/35)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: E. Manhaeve and M. Wilderspin, then by M. Wilderspin, S. Delaude and L. Cappeletti and lastly by S. Delaude and L. Cappeletti, acting as Agents, and by D. Philippe and M. Gouden, lawyers)

         Re:

      Action on the basis of an arbitration clause, seeking an order that the Commission pay (i) the sums allegedly due to the applicant and (ii) damages, following termination of a contract relating to Community financial support for the project ‘e Content Exposure and Business Opportunities’ (Contract No EDC-53007 EEBO/27873), concluded in the framework of the multiannual Community programme to stimulate the development and use of European digital content on the global networks and to promote linguistic diversity in the information society.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Orders the European Commission to pay Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE the sum of EUR 8 843,10;

                  2.

                  Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

                  3.

                  Orders the European Commission to pay 5 % of its own costs and 5 % of the costs of Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis, and the latter to pay 95 % of its own costs and 95 % of the Commission’s costs.

         (1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.


title: Case C-192/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 24 April 2015 — T.D. Rease, P. Wullems; other party: College bescherming persoonsgegevens

text:
               20.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/26

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 24 April 2015 — T.D. Rease, P. Wullems; other party: College bescherming persoonsgegevens
   (Case C-192/15)
   (2015/C 236/35)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: T.D. Rease, P. Wullems

      Other party: College bescherming persoonsgegevens

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does an instruction to employ equipment for the processing of personal data within the territory of a Member State, issued outside the EU by a controller, within the meaning of Article 2(d) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31), to a detective agency established within the EU, come within the notion of ‘making use of equipment’ within the meaning of Article 4(1)(c) of that directive?

               2.

               Does Directive 95/46/EC, in particular Article 28(3) and (4) thereof, given the objective of that directive, allow the national authorities the latitude, when enforcing the protection of individuals by the supervisory authorities provided for in that directive, to set priorities which result in such enforcement not taking place in the case where only an individual or a small group of persons submits a complaint alleging a breach of that directive?


title: Case T-432/03: Action brought on 22 December 2003 by Jean Dehon against the European Parliament

text:
C 47/38                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                       21.2.2004
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —     Annul the decision of the selection board in competition
The applicant, who was classified in Grade A7, Step 3, upon                     COM/TB/99 to award the applicant an insufficient mark
entering the service of the Commission in September 1986,                       in the oral test to allow him to be entered on the reserve
challenges the decision of the appointing authority, adopted                    list;
following a reconsideration of that classification following the
judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-389/98 P Gevaert v             —     Order the defendant to pay the costs.
Commission, to reclassify him in Step 1 of Grade A6, instead
of Step 3 of that grade, and revising and setting at new dates
his subsequent classification in Grade A5, Step 2, and A4,
Step 2, and limiting the pecuniary effects of that reclassification
to 5 October 1995.                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          Following the judgment of the Court of First Instance on
In support of his claims, action, the applicant claims that the
                                                                          13 March 2002 in Case T-364/00 Van Weyenbergh, the
Commission has breached:
                                                                          applicant in the present case, as in Case T-161/01, objects to
                                                                          the decision of the selection board in competition COM/TB/
—     the decisions of 6 June 1973 and 1 September 1983 in                99 constituting a reserve list of administrative assistants,
      so far as it omitted to grant the applicant the slightest           senior administrative assistants and principal administrative
      seniority in step, and also Article 5(3) of the Staff               assistants, in Grades B5/B4, B3/B2 and B1 respectively, not to
      Regulations in so far as the Commission applied to the              enter him on the reserve list in that competition on the ground
      applicant a different outcome from that of officials in the         that he was awarded an insufficient mark in the oral test.
      same category;
—     Articles 5(3) and 45 of the Staff Regulations by refusing           In support of his claims, he alleges that there has been a
      to reconstruct his career in grade following his reclassifi-        breach of the principles of non-discrimination and proper
      cation in Grade A6, and breach of the duty to have regard           administration and also a manifest error of assessment.
      to the welfare of officials;
—     Article 62 of the Staff Regulations by limiting in time the         The applicant criticises the method used by the selection board
      pecuniary effects of his reclassification.                          to assess his knowledge of languages and claims, in particular,
                                                                          that he was unable to ascertain whether the questions put
                                                                          during the oral test correspond to the level of the competition
                                                                          B5/B4, B3/B2 or B1.
Action brought on 22 December 2003 by Liam O’Bra-
daigh against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                ties                                      Action brought on 22 December 2003 by Jean Dehon
                                                                                against the European Parliament
                         (Case T-431/03)
                                                                                (Case T-432/03)
                          (2004/C 47/71)
                                                                                (2004/C 47/72)
                   (Language of the case: French)                                            (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 An action against the European Parliament was brought before
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
European Communities on 22 December 2003 by Liam                          on 22 December 2003 by Jean Dehon, residing in Hagen
O’Bradaigh, residing in Mechelen (Belgium), represented by                (Luxembourg), represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert
Sébastien Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Étienne             Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Étienne Marchal, lawyers, with an
Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.              address for service in Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- 21.2.2004             EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 47/39
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                      Gibbesi’, ‘Messina-Palermo motorway major project’,
                                                                                ‘Aragona Favara’ and ‘Piana di Catania’, and all other acts
—     Annul the decision of the European Parliament to move                      resulting from it; Order the Commission of the European
      on to the recruiting phase provided for in Article 29(1)(b)                Communities to pay the costs.
      of the Staff Regulations, namely the organisation of an
      internal competition, in order to fill the post of Deputy
      Head of Division of the French Translation Division
      (Vacancy Notice No 9192);
—     Order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           The Regione Siciliana has brought an action before the Court
In support of his application, the applicant alleges, first,               of First Instance of the European Communities for the
infringement of Article 233 of the EC Treaty inasmuch as the               annulment of Commission Decision BUDG/C3/EB/WH
Parliament failed to comply properly with the judgment of the              D(2003) 10.5 — 191 No 331997 of 24 October 2003 on
Court of First Instance of 15 November 2000 in Case                        ‘setting off the Commission’s claims against its debts’, included
T-261/99 Dehon v Parliament. The applicant further alleges                 in the table annexed which sets out the ‘set off prescribed on
infringement of Article 29(1)(a) of the Staff Regulations and              7 November 2003’, with reference to amounts relating to the
breach of the principle that officials must have reasonable                European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) applicable to
career prospects.                                                          the ‘Porto Empedocle major project’, ‘Diga Gibbesi’, ‘Messina-
                                                                           Palermo motorway major project’, ‘Aragona Favara’ and ‘Piana
                                                                           di Catania’, and all other acts resulting from it.
                                                                           In support of its action the Regione Siciliana alleges:
Action brought on 24 December 2003 by the Regione
Siciliana against the Commission of the European Com-
                                                                           1.    Infringement and/or erroneous application of Articles 71
                             munities
                                                                                and 73 of Council Regulation No 1605 of 25 June
                                                                                2002 (1) and Articles 83 and 86 of Commission
                         (Case T-435/03)                                         implementing Regulation No 2342 of 23 December
                                                                                2002 (2) in so far as the contested decision has set off
                                                                                against the credits of the Regione Siciliana certain debts
                          (2004/C 47/73)                                         in the form of interest for late payment alleged to have
                                                                                accrued to the Regione during periods in which, had the
                                                                                Commission applied the Community rules according to
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                               the law and timeously, no such interest would have
                                                                                become due;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  2.    Infringement and erroneous application of Articles 73
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                       and 187 of Council Regulation No 1605 of 25 June 2002
European Communities on 24 December 2003 by the Regione                          and Article 83 of Commission implementing Regulation
Siciliana, represented by A. Cingolo, avvocato dello Stato.                      No 2342 of 23 December 2002 as regards the starting
                                                                                date for the application of the compulsory set off of
                                                                                credits and debits to the Commission;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     Annul Commission Decision BUDG/C3/EB/WH D(2003)                      3.    Misuse of powers on grounds of contradiction between
      10.5 — 191 No 331997 of 24 October 2003 on ‘setting                        subsequent acts and infringement of the principle of
      off the Commission’s claims against its debts’, included in                legitimate expectations in so far as the Commission
      the table annexed which sets out the ‘set off prescribed                   contradicted its own earlier decisions even against the
      on 7 November 2003’, with reference to amounts relating                    Regione Siciliana as regards the lawfulness of using a set
      to the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)                           off to extinguish financial obligations similar to those in
      applicable to the ‘Porto Empedocle major project’, ‘Diga                   the present case;


title: Case T-104/13: Action brought on 20 February 2013 — Toshiba v Commission

text:
               20.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 114/41

         Action brought on 20 February 2013 — Toshiba v Commission
   (Case T-104/13)
   2013/C 114/63
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Toshiba Corp. (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: J. MacLennan, Solicitor, J. Jourdan, A. Schulz and P. Berghe, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Article 1(2)(d) of the Commission’s Decision of 5 December 2012, in Case COMP/39.437 — TV and Computer Monitor Tubes;

               —

               Annul Article 1(2)(e) of the Commission’s Decision of 5 December 2012, in Case COMP/39.437 — TV and Computer Monitor Tubes;

               —

               Annul Article 2(2)(g) of the contested decision or alternatively reduce the fine as the General Court finds appropriate;

               —

               Annul Article 2(2)(h) of the contested decision or alternatively annul Article 2(2)(h) in so far as Toshiba is held jointly and severally held liable or alternatively reduce the fine as the General Court finds appropriate;

               —

               Make such other order as may be appropriate in the circumstances of the case;

               —

               Award the applicant its costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision erred in finding Toshiba Corporation liable for the infringement of Article 101 TFEU for the period 16 May 2000 until 11 April 2002.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision erred in finding Toshiba Corporation liable for the infringement of Article 101 TFEU for the period 12 April 2002 until 31 March 2003;

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision erred in finding Toshiba Corporation liable for the infringement of Article 101 TFEU for the period 1 April 2003 until 12 June 2006.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision erred in finding Toshiba Corporation jointly and severally liable for Matsushita Toshiba Picture Display Co., Ltd. ’s (‘MTPD’) participation in the infringement for the period 1 April 2003 until 12 June 2006.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging, in the alternative to the fourth plea, that the contested decision erred in finding MTPD liable for participating in the infringement for the period 1 April 2003 until 12 June 2006.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision erred in imposing a fine in Articles 2(2)(g) and 2(2)(h) or, in the alternative, erred in calculating these fines.


title: Joined Cases T-447/09 and T-449/09: Order of the General Court of 16 January 2013 — Centre national de la recherche scientifique v Commission

text:
               9.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/27

         Order of the General Court of 16 January 2013 — Centre national de la recherche scientifique v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-447/09 and T-449/09) (1)

   2013/C 71/43
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the joined cases be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 June 2000 in Case C-190/99: Commission of the European Communities v Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 96/43/EC — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
9.9.2000                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                               C 259/1
                                                                          I
                                                                    (Information)
                                                      COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                             of Article 4(1) of Council Directive 96/43/EC of 26 June
                                                                                1996 amending and consolidating Directive 85/73/EEC in
                                                                                order to ensure financing of veterinary inspections and controls
                          (First Chamber)                                           on live animals and certain animal products and amending
                                                                                Directives 90/675/EEC and 91/496/EEC, Ireland has failed
                                                                                to fulfil its obligations under that subparagraph;
                           of 8 June 2000
                                                                              2.    Orders Ireland to pay the costs.
in Case C-190/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                          ties v Ireland (1)                                  (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
96/43/EC — Failure to transpose within the prescribed
                               period)
                          (2000/C 259/01)                                                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                of 15 June 2000
                                                                              in Case C-348/97: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Federal Republic of Germany(1)
In Case C-190/99: Commission of the European Communities                      (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Trade
(Agent: P. Oliver) v Ireland (Agent: M.A. Buckley) — appli-                   with the German Democratic Republic prior to German
cation for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws,                  reunification — Regulation (EEC) No 2252/90 — Abolition
regulations or administrative provisions necessary to comply                  of customs formalities — Failure to charge import levies in
with Council Directive 96/43/EC of 26 June 1996 amending                      inter-German trade — Failure to make own resources
and consolidating Directive 85/73/EEC in order to ensure                                           available to the Commission)
financing of veterinary inspections and controls on live
animals and certain animal products and amending Directives
90/675/EEC and 91/496/EEC (OJ 1996 L 162, p. 1) and/or by                                                  (2000/C 259/02)
failing to inform the Commission thereof, Ireland has failed to
fulfil its obligations under that directive — the Court (First
Chamber), composed of: L. Sevón, President of the Chamber,                                         (Language of the case: German)
P. Jann (Rapporteur) and M. Wathelet, Judges; J. Mischo, Advo-
cate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on
8 June 2000, in which it:                                                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed periods
      the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to        In Case C-348/97: Commission of the European Communities
      comply with the provisions referred to in the first subparagraph        (Agents: K.-D. Borchardt) v Federal Republic of Germany


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 30 April 1998 in Case C-230/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'Appel, Douai): Cabour SA and Nord Distribution Automobile SA, supported by Automobiles Peugeot SA and Automobiles Citroën SA v. Arnor 'SOCO' SARL (Competition - Vehicle distribution - Validity of exclusive dealership agreement - Article 85(1) and (3) of the EC Treaty - Regulation (EEC) No 123/85 - Regulation (EC) No 1475/95)

text:
C 184/2             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      13.6.98
   whether the said substance is a starting material                     relating to similar domestic claims and must not be so
   within the meaning of the first paragraph of that                     framed as to make it in practice impossible or
   provision. If it is not, such particulars may                         excessively difficult to obtain reparation.
   nevertheless be required in so far as the features of the
   process by which the starting material is manufactured           (1) OJ C 174, 8.7.1995.
   from the substance are such that no other means of
   assessing the purity of the starting material is
   available. Where the competent authority requires an
   applicant for marketing authorisation to provide
   information under Article 9, point 3, of Directive 81/
   851/EEC, the time-limits laid down in Article 8 of
   that directive are to be suspended until that                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   information is provided.
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 30 April 1998
2. The fact that the process by which a medicinal
   product is manufactured is continuous or other than              in Case C-230/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
   continuous does not affect the answers to the first              the Cour d'Appel, Douai): Cabour SA and Nord
   question.                                                        Distribution Automobile SA, supported by Automobiles
                                                                    Peugeot SA and Automobiles CitroeÈn SA v. Arnor SOCO'
                                                                                SARL (1)
3. The competent authority is not authorised to exempt
   an applicant for marketing authorisation from                    (Competition Ð Vehicle distribution Ð Validity of
   providing a particular or document required under                exclusive dealership agreement Ð Article 85(1) and (3) of
   Article 5 of Directive 81/851/EEC even if it appears             the EC Treaty Ð Regulation (EEC) No 123/85 Ð
   practically impossible, in a given case, to obtain that                          Regulation (EC) No 1475/95)
   information.                                                                              (98/C 184/02)
4. Consideration of the fourth question has disclosed no                            (Language of the case: French)
   factor of such a kind as to affect the validity, in the
   light of the principle of proportionality, of points 3, 4
   or 9 of the second paragraph of Article 5 of Directive             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
   81/851/EEC or Part 1(A), (B) or (C) of the Annex to                        published in the European Court Reports)
   Directive 81/852/EEC.
                                                                    In Case C-230/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
5. Consideration of the fifth question has disclosed no             of the EC Treaty from the Cour d'Appel (Court of
   factor of such a kind as to affect the validity, in the          Appeal), Douai, France, for a preliminary ruling in the
   light of Articles 30 to 36 of the EC Treaty, of                  proceedings pending before that court between Cabour SA
   Directives 81/851/EEC and 81/852/EEC.                            and Nord Distribution Automobile SA, supported by
                                                                    Automobiles Peugeot SA and Automobiles CitroeÈn SA and
                                                                    Arnor SOCO' SARL Ð on the interpretation of
6. Article 40 of Directive 81/851/EEC must be                       Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty and certain provisions of
   interpreted as meaning that a request for further                Commission Regulation (EEC) No 123/85 of 12 December
   information based on Article 9, point 3, of that                 1984 on the application of Article 85(3) of the EEC
   directive need not state the reasons on which it is              Treaty to certain categories of motor vehicle distribution
   based.                                                           and servicing agreements (OJ L 15 of 18.1.1985, p. 16),
                                                                    and of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 of
                                                                    28 June 1995 (OJ L 145 of 29.6.1995, p. 25) Ð the Court
7. A Member State is required to make good loss and                 (Sixth Chamber), composed of: H. Ragnemalm, President
   damage caused to an applicant for marketing                      of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), G. F.
   authorisation as a result of requests for information            Mancini, P. J. G. Kapteyn and G. Hirsch, Judges; G.
   and requirements which infringe Directives 81/851/               Tesauro, Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,
   EEC and 81/852/EEC where the rule of Community                   Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
   law infringed is intended to confer rights on                    judgment on 30 April 1998, in which it has ruled:
   individuals, the breach is sufficiently serious and there
   is a direct causal link between that breach and the
   damage sustained by the individuals concerned.                   1. On a proper construction of Article 5(2)(1)(a) and (b)
   Subject to that reservation, it is on the basis of rules of           of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 123/85 of
   national law on liability that the State must make                    12 December 1984 on the application of Article 85(3)
   reparation for the consequences of the loss and                       of the EEC Treaty to certain categories of motor
   damage caused by a breach of Community law for                        vehicle distribution and servicing agreements, the
   which it can be held responsible, with the proviso that               exemption granted by the regulation applies to a
   the conditions laid down by the applicable national                   clause in an exclusive dealership agreement which does
   legislation must not be less favourable than those                    no more than provide that the parties may, in order to
 ---pagebreak--- 13.6.98               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 184/3
    release themselves from the obligation not to compete,                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
    put forward objectively valid reasons, without                                         (Sixth Chamber)
    indicating specifically what those reasons may be.
                                                                                of 30 April 1998
                                                                           in Case C-24/97: Commission of the European
    On a proper construction of Article 3(3) and 5(2) of                  Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany (1)
    Regulation (EEC) No 123/85, the exemption granted
    by the regulation does not apply to a clause in a               (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð
    contract which, unless there are objectively valid              Right of residence Ð Obligation to hold identity papers
    reasons, prevents the dealer from selling new vehicles                                   Ð Penalties)
    of any other make, even at commercial premises
                                                                                (98/C 184/03)
    separate from those at which the contract goods are
    offered for sale.
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
    On a proper construction of Articles 4(1)(3) and
    5(2)(2) and (3) of Regulation (EEC) No 123/85, the               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
    exemption granted by the regulation applies to a                          published in the European Court Reports)
    clause in a contract which imposes on a dealer a fixed
    sales target and provides for penalties, extending to
    termination of the contract if the target is not met,           In Case C-24/97: Commission of the European
    provided, however, that the sales target represents             Communities (Agents: Peter Hillenkamp and Pieter Jan
    simply an obligation to use best endeavours.                    Kuijper) v. Federal Republic of Germany (Agent: Ernst
                                                                    Röder) Ð application for a declaration that by treating
                                                                    nationals of other Member States residing in Germany
2. On a proper construction of Articles 3(3) and 5(2) of            disproportionately differently, as regards the degree of
    Commission Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 of 28 June                fault and scale of fines, from German nationals when they
    1995 on the application of Article 85(3) of the Treaty          commit a comparable infringement of the obligation to
    to certain categories of motor vehicle distribution and         hold a valid identity document, the Federal Republic of
    servicing agreements, the exemption granted by the              Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under
    regulation does not apply to a clause in a contract             Articles 48, 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty and under
    which, unless there are objectively valid reasons,              Article 4(1) of Council Directive 68/360/EEC of
    prevents the dealer from selling new vehicles of any            15 October 1968 on the abolition of restrictions on
    other make, even at commercial premises separate                movement and residence within the Community for
    from those at which the contract goods are offered for          workers of Member States and their families (OJ, English
    sale.                                                           Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 485) and Article 4(1) of
                                                                    Council Directive 73/148/EEC of 21 May 1973 on the
                                                                    abolition of restrictions on movement and residence
                                                                    within the Community for nationals of Member States
    On a proper construction of Articles 4(1)(3) and 5(2)           with regard to establishment and the provision of services
    and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1475/95, the                      (OJ L 172 of 28.6.1973, p. 14) Ð the Court (Sixth
    exemption granted by the regulation applies to a                Chamber), composed of H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur),
    clause in a contract which imposes on a dealer a fixed          President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini, J. L. Murray, G.
    sales target and provides for penalties, which may              Hirsch and K. M. Ioannou, Judges; F. G. Jacobs,
    extend to termination of the contract if the target is          Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
    not met, provided, however, that the sales target               judgment on 30 April 1998 in which it:
    represents simply an obligation to use best endeavours
    and is determined by common agreement between the
    parties or, where they disagree, by an expert third             1. Declares that, by treating nationals of other Member
    party.                                                              States residing in Germany disproportionately
                                                                        differently, as regards the degree of fault and scale of
                                                                        fines, from German nationals when they commit a
3. The prohibition set out in Article 85(1) of the Treaty               comparable infringement of the obligation to hold a
    applies to clauses in a motor vehicle dealership                    valid identity document, the Federal Republic of
    contract which are not covered by the block                         Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under
    exemption if, having regard to the economic and legal               Articles 48, 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty, Article 4 of
    context, their object or effect is perceptibly to restrict          Council Directive 68/360/EEC of 15 October 1968 on
    competition within the common market and they are                   the abolition of restrictions on movement and
    capable of affecting trade between Member States.                   residence within the Community for workers of
                                                                        Member States and their families and Article 4 of
                                                                        Council Directive 73/148/EEC of 21 May 1973 on the
(1) OJ C 269, 14.9.1996.                                                abolition of restrictions on movement and residence
                                                                        within the Community for nationals of Member States
                                                                        with regard to establishment and the provision of
                                                                        services;


title: Case T-705/16 P: Appeal brought on 3 October 2016 by WQ (*) against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 July 2016 in Case F-1/16, WQ (*) v Parliament

text:
                  5.12.2016

                  EN

                  Official Journal of the European Union

                  C 454/29

         Appeal brought on 3 October 2016 by  WQ (*1) against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 July 2016 in Case F-1/16,  WQ (*1) v Parliament
         (Case T-705/16 P)
         (2016/C 454/51)
         Language of the case: French

            Parties

            Appellant: WQ (*1) (represented by S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

            Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

            Form of order sought by the appellant

         The appellant claims that the Court should:

                     —

                     set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-1/16,  WQ (*1)
                         v Parliament;

                     —

                     annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 27 March 2015 not to include the appellant’s name on the list of officials selected to participate in the training programme for the 2014 certification exercise;

                     —

                     order the Parliament to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings.

            Grounds of appeal and main arguments

         In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on three grounds.

                     1.

                     First ground of appeal, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) erred in law when it examined the plea in law submitted by the applicant at first instance alleging infringement of the general principle of equal treatment, by concluding that the applicant was in a different factual situation to that of a candidate with a qualification at the same level who completed a course of at least one year.

                     2.

                     Second ground of appeal, alleging that the CST erred in law when it held that the decision at issue, that is to say, the decision not to include the appellant’s name on list of officials selected to participate in the training programme for the 2014 certification exercise, did not infringe Article 165 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the division of competences between the Union and its Member States in the field of education.

                     3.

                     Third ground of appeal, alleging that the CST erred in law when it dismissed the plea of illegality raised by the applicant at first instance, on the ground that the requirement for having completed a course of at least one year was justified and proportionate having regard to the nature of the certification process. In that context, the appellant submits that the CST also distorted his arguments when it concluded that he had not contested the argument that taking into consideration the qualification at issue would have had the effect of highlighting his professional experience acquired at the institutions twice.

            (*1)  Information erased within the framework of the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data.


title: Case T-231/17: Action brought on 20 April 2017 — SE v Council

text:
               3.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/31

         Action brought on 20 April 2017 — SE v Council
   (Case T-231/17)
   (2017/C 213/43)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: SE (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   Declare and annul,

               —

               the decision of the Individual Entitlements Unit of 22 June 2016 refusing acknowledgement, concerning his granddaughter, of his dependent child;

               —

               insofar as necessary, the express decision of 24 January 2017 rejecting the claim made on 19 September 2016;

         in so doing,

               —

               declare that the applicant’s granddaughter is dependent upon him under the third subparagraph of Article 2(2) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations with effect from 13 June 2016;

               —

               grant the applicant’s granddaughter the benefit of the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme (JSIS) through the applicant with effect from 13 June 2016;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an error of law and errors of assessment and interpretation of the third subparagraph of Article 2(2) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials committed by the Council by adopting the contested decisions.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.


title: Case T-447/16: Action brought on 4 August 2016 — Pirelli Tyre v EUIPO — Yokohama Rubber (Representation of a tyre tread)

text:
               26.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 350/27

         Action brought on 4 August 2016 — Pirelli Tyre v EUIPO — Yokohama Rubber (Representation of a tyre tread)
   (Case T-447/16)
   (2016/C 350/33)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Pirelli Tyre SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: T. Müller and F. Togo, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: The Yokohama Rubber Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japan)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: figurative mark (representation of a tyre tread — EU trade mark No 2 319 176)

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 April 2016 in Case R 2583/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision insofar as it declared the trademark invalid and ordered the applicant to bear the costs of proceedings before the Office.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b)(e) and (ii) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 29 September 1999 in Case T-126/97: Sonasa - Sociedade Nacional de Segurança, Ld.a v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment - European Social Fund - Reduction of financial assistance - Legitimate expectations - Legal certainty - Sound administration - Inadequate statement of reasons)

text:
30.10.1999                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 314/7
                                                          COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                2. The remainder of the action is dismissed.
                                                                           3. Each party shall bear its own costs.
                        of 16 September 1999
                                                                           (1) OJ C 26 of 25.1.1997.
in Case T-182/96: Partex — Companhia Portuguesa de
Serviços SA v Commission of the European Communi-
                                 ties (1)
(Social policy — European Social Fund — Action for                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
annulment — Reduction in financial aid — Facts and
accounts certified as accurate — Competence ratione tempo-
ris of the State concerned — Statement of reasons — Rights                                      of 29 September 1999
of the defence — Abuse of rights — Legitimate expectations
      — Protection of vested rights — Misuse of powers)
                                                                           in Case T-126/97: Sonasa — Sociedade Nacional de
                                                                           Segurança, Ld.a v Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties (1)
                           (1999/C 314/16)
                                                                           (Action for annulment — European Social Fund —
                                                                           Reduction of financial assistance — Legitimate expectations
                                                                           — Legal certainty — Sound administration — Inadequate
                                                                                statement of reasons)
                   (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                                                                                (1999/C 314/17)
In Case T-182/96: Partex — Companhia Portuguesa de Ser-                                     (Language of the case: Portuguese)
viços SA, whose registered office is in Lisbon, represented by
Rui Chancerelle de Machete, Pedro Machete and Miguel Pena
Machete, of the Lisbon Bar, with an address for service in                 In Case T-126/97: Sonasa — Sociedade Nacional de Segurança,
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort                 Ld.a, established in Lisbon, represented by Nuno Morais
Rheinsheim v Commission of the European Communities                        Sarmento, of the Lisbon Bar, with an address for service in
(Agents: Maria Teresa Figueira and Knut Simonsson) — appli-                Luxembourg at the Chambers of Victor Gillen, 13 Rue
cation for annulment of Commission Decision C (96) 1184 of                 Aldringen v Commission of the European Communities
14 August 1996 reducing the financial assistance from the                  (Agents: Maria Teresa Figueira and Knut Simonson) — appli-
European Social Fund granted in respect of project No                      cation for annulment of Commission Decision C (96) 3451 of
880412/P3 — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),                   16 December 1996 reducing financial assistance granted to
composed of M. Jaeger, President, K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi,                the applicant by the European Social Fund — the Court of
Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar,            First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of R.M. Moura
gave a judgment on 16 September 1999, the operative part of                Ramos, President, V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung,
which is as follows:                                                       Registrar, gave a judgment on 29 September 1999, in which
                                                                           it:
1. Commission Decision C (96) 1184 of 14 August 1996 reduc-                1. Dismisses the action;
     ing the financial assistance from the European Social Fund in
     respect of project No 880412/P3 is annulled in so far as it           2. Orders the applicant to pay all the costs.
     imposes, in regard to subheadings 14.2.6, 14.2.7, 14.3.1(b),
     14.3.1(c), 14.3.7, 14.63.8 and 14.3.15 of the part of the
     project relating to Tintas Robbialac SA and subheadings 14.2.8,       (1) OJ No C 199 of 28.6.1997.
     14.3.1(b), 14.3.1(c), 14.3.7 and 14.3.11 of the part of the
     project relating to Sapec — Produits et Engrais Chimiques du
     Portugal SA, a reduction in the amounts claimed by the applicant
     in its final payment claim.