title: Case F-12/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 28 September 2011 — Hecq v Commission (Civil service — Occupational disease — Invalidity procedure — Application to resume professional activity — Application for damages and interest)

text:
               10.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 362/25

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 28 September 2011 — Hecq v Commission
   (Case F-12/11) (1)

   (Civil service - Occupational disease - Invalidity procedure - Application to resume professional activity - Application for damages and interest)
   2011/C 362/43
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Hecq (Chaumont-Gistoux, Belgium) (represented by: L. Vogel, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of the implied decision rejecting the applicant’s request to resume his professional activities and for full payment of his remuneration as an official, calculated from 1 August 2003, and for damages, plus default interest calculated at a rate of 7 % per annum from 1 August 2003.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Mr Hecq shall pay the entirety of the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 9.4.11, p. 22.


title: Case T-243/14: Judgment of the General Court of 7 October 2015 — The Smiley Company v OHIM (Shape of a face) (Community trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark — Shape of a face — Absolute ground for refusal — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/49

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 October 2015 — The Smiley Company v OHIM (Shape of a face)
   (Case T-243/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark - Shape of a face - Absolute ground for refusal - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 398/62)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: The Smiley Company SPRL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Freitag and C. Albrecht, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Geroulakos and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 January 2014 (Case R 837/2013-1) concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a three-dimensional sign comprising the shape of a face.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 16 January 2014 (Case R 837/2013-1) with regard to the refusal to register the mark applied for in respect of ‘preserved, frozen, dried and cooked fruits and vegetables; milk products’;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 25.8.2014.


title: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 July 2005 in Case C-434/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden in P. Charles and T.S. Charles-Tijmens v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Sixth VAT directive — Deduction of input tax paid — Immovable property used in part for the business and in part for private purposes)

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/13

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Grand Chamber)
   of 14 July 2005
   in Case C-434/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden in P. Charles and T.S. Charles-Tijmens v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (1)

   (Sixth VAT directive - Deduction of input tax paid - Immovable property used in part for the business and in part for private purposes)
   (2005/C 217/24)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case C-434/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands), made by decision of 10 October 2003, received at the Court on 13 October 2003, in the proceedings between P. Charles and T.S. Charles-Tijmens and Staatssecretaris van Financiën — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas, R. Silva de Lapuerta, K. Lenaerts and A. Borg Barthet, Presidents of Chambers, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, J. Makarczyk, P. Kūris, E. Juhász and G. Arestis, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; K. Sztranc, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 July 2005, in which it ruled:
   Article 6(2) and Article 17(2) and (6) 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, as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, adopted before that directive came into force, which does not make it possible for a taxable person to allocate capital goods used in part for business purposes and in part for purposes other than those of his business wholly to his business and, where appropriate, to deduct immediately and in full the value added tax due on the acquisition of those goods.

      (1)  OJ C 304 of 13.12.2003.


title: Case T-57/11: Judgment of the General Court of 3 December 2014  — Castelnou Energía v Commission (State Aid — Electricity — Compensation of additional production costs — Public service obligation to produce certain volumes of electricity from indigenous coal — Preferential dispatch mechanism — Decision not to raise objections — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market — Action for annulment — Individual concern — Significant effect on a competitive position — Admissibility — Failure to initiate the formal review procedure — Serious difficulties — Service of general economic interest — Security of electricity supply — Article 11(4) of Directive 2003/54/EC — Free movement of goods — Protection of the environment — Directive 2003/87/EC)

text:
               26.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 3 December 2014 — Castelnou Energía v Commission
   (Case T-57/11) (1)

   ((State Aid - Electricity - Compensation of additional production costs - Public service obligation to produce certain volumes of electricity from indigenous coal - Preferential dispatch mechanism - Decision not to raise objections - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market - Action for annulment - Individual concern - Significant effect on a competitive position - Admissibility - Failure to initiate the formal review procedure - Serious difficulties - Service of general economic interest - Security of electricity supply - Article 11(4) of Directive 2003/54/EC - Free movement of goods - Protection of the environment - Directive 2003/87/EC))
   (2015/C 026/28)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Castelnou Energía, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented initially by: E. Garayar Gutiérrez, subsequently by: C. Fernández Vicién, A. Pereda Miquel and C. del Pozo de la Cuadra, then by: C. Fernández Vicién, L. Pérez de Ayala Becerril and D. Antón Vega, and finally by: C. Fernández Vicién, L. Pérez de Ayala Becerril and C. Vila Gisbert, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Greenpeace-España (Madrid, Spain) (represented initially by: N. Ersbøll, S. Rating and A. Criscuolo, and subsequently by: N. Ersbøll and S. Rating, lawyers)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented initially by: J. Rodríguez Cárcamo, subsequently by: M. Muñoz Pérez and N. Díaz Abad, then by: N. Díaz Abad and S. Centeno Huerta, and finally by: A. Rubio González and M. Sampol Pucurull, abogados del Estado); Hidroeléctrica del Cantábrico, SA (Oviedo, Spain) (represented by: J. Álvarez de Toledo Saavedra and J. Portomeñe López, lawyers); E.ON Generación, SL (Santander, Spain) (represented initially by: E. Sebastián de Erice Malo de Molina and S. Rodríguez Bajón, and subsequently by: S. Rodríguez Bajón, lawyers); Comunidad Autónoma de Castilla y León (represented initially by: K. Desai, Solicitor, S. Cisnal de Ugarte and M. Peristeraki, lawyers, and subsequently by: S. Cisnal de Ugarte); and Federación Nacional de Empresarios de Minas de Carbón (Carbunión) (Madrid, Spain) (represented initially by: K. Desai, Solicitor, S. Cisnal de Ugarte and M. Peristeraki, lawyers, and subsequently by: S. Cisnal de Ugarte and A. Baumann, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 4499 of 29 September 2010, concerning State aid N178/2010 notified by the Kingdom of Spain in the form of a public service compensation linked to a preferential dispatch mechanism for indigenous coal power plants.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders Castelnou Energía, SL to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain, Greenpeace-España, Hidroeléctrica del Cantábrico, SA, E.ON Generación, SL, la Comunidad Autónoma de Castilla y León and la Federación Nacional de Empresarios de Minas de Carbón (Carbunión) to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 12.3.2011.


title: Case T-360/14: Action brought on 21 May 2014 — Švyturys-Utenos Alus v OHIM — Nordbrand Nordhausen (KISS)

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/45

         Action brought on 21 May 2014 — Švyturys-Utenos Alus v OHIM — Nordbrand Nordhausen (KISS)
   (Case T-360/14)
   2014/C 253/60
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Švyturys-Utenos Alus UAB (Utena, Lithuania) (represented by: R. Žabolienė and I. Lukauskienė, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nordbrand Nordhausen GmbH (Nordhausen, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 March 2014 in Case R 1302/2013-4; and

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark KISS for goods in Class 33 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 6 20  565

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Nordbrand Nordhausen GmbH

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark CRISS for goods in Class 33

      Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: The decision of the Opposition Division was annulled and the Community trade mark application rejected

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Rule 20(7)(c) in conjunction with Rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95 in conjunction with Article 55(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


               18.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/51

         (2006/C 281/91)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 261, 28.10.2006

   Past publications

      OJ C 249, 14.10.2006

      OJ C 237, 30.9.2006

      OJ C 224, 16.9.2006

      OJ C 212, 2.9.2006

      OJ C 190, 12.8.2006

      OJ C 178, 29.7.2006

   These texts are available on:

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


title: Case T-743/15: Action brought on 21 December 2015 — Vinnolit v Commission

text:
               15.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 59/44

         Action brought on 21 December 2015 — Vinnolit v Commission
   (Case T-743/15)
   (2016/C 059/51)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Vinnolit GmbH & Co. KG (Ismaning, Germany) (represented by: M. Geipel, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1585 of 25 November 2014 on the aid scheme SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) (implemented by Germany for the support of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users), in particular the finding, in Articles 1 and 3, that the special compensation rule (‘Besondere Ausgleichsregelung’) under the EEG-Act 2012 has the classification of State aid and that it is incompatible with the internal market and the obligation referred to in Articles 2, 6 and 7 relating to the partial recovery of benefits granted in 2013 and 2014 from the recipient users;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: No aid within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU
               The applicant claims that the cap of the EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users, provided for in the Gesetz für den Vorrang erneuerbarer Energien (Law for the priority of renewable energy sources, hereinafter referred to as EEG), constitutes a modification of a civil law compensation mechanism. No advantage through State resources or State-controlled resources is granted.

               2.

               Second plea in law: In any event, no new aid
               The applicant also claims that the reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users does not constitute new aid for the purposes of Article 108 TFEU because the financing mechanism for the support of renewable energies in the Federal Republic of Germany has, in the past, been classified by the Commission as compatible with the law on State aid and has not been substantially modified thus far.

               3.

               Third plea in law: Infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations
               The applicant submits in that regard that, by its decision, the Commission infringed the legitimate expectations of the users concerned because the financing mechanism for the support of renewable energies in the Federal Republic of Germany has, in the past, been classified by the Commission as compatible with the law on State aid and has not been substantially modified since.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law: Lack of powers of the defendant
               Lastly, the applicant claims that, by its decision, the Commission misused the powers conferred on it by unduly reducing the margin of discretion conferred upon the Federal Republic of Germany under primary and secondary law as regards the manner in which support for renewable energies is organised.


21.4.2001              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 118/23
        Removal from the register of Case C-367/99 (1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-463/99 (1)
                        (2001/C 118/40)                                                      (2001/C 118/43)
By order of 13 September 2000 the President of the Court of           By order of 26 September 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-367/99: [reference for a preliminary      from the register of Case C-463/99: Commission of the
ruling from Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria)]: Hugo BOSS            European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
AG v Coalle FA-93.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.
( 1) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-467/99 (1)
        Removal from the register of Case C-246/97 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/44)
                        (2001/C 118/41)
                                                                      By order of 26 September 2000 the President of the Court of
By order of 19 September 2000 the President of the Court of           Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           from the register of Case C-467/99: Commission of the
from the register of Case C-246/97: Portuguese Republic v             European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.
(1) OJ C 271 of 6.9.1997.
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-47/00 (1)
        Removal from the register of Case    C-330/97 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/45)
                        (2001/C 118/42)
                                                                      By order of 26 September 2000 the President of the Court of
By order of 19 September 2000 the President of the Court of           Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           from the register of Case C-47/00: (reference for a preliminary
from the register of Case C-330/97: Portuguese Republic v             ruling from the Bundessozialgericht): Hasan Gevin v Bundesan-
Commission of the European Communities.                               stalt für Arbeit — Kindergeldkasse.
(1) OJ C 357 of 22.11.1997.                                           (1) OJ C 122 of 29.4.2000.


title: Case T-4/15: Action brought on 8 January 2015  — Beiersdorf v OHIM (Q10)

text:
               23.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/53

         Action brought on 8 January 2015 — Beiersdorf v OHIM (Q10)
   (Case T-4/15)
   (2015/C 065/73)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Beiersdorf AG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: A. Renck and J. Fuhrmann, lawyers)

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

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘Q10’ — Application for registration No 11 480 837

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 October 2014 in Case R 2050/2013-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs, including those of the applicant.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 32(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-486/10: Action brought on 8 October 2010 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               15.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/17

         Action brought on 8 October 2010 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-486/10)
   ()
   2011/C 13/28
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Wilms and C. Zadra, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by the fact that the City of Hamm directly awarded to the Lippeverband, without previously issuing a Europe-wide invitation to tender, service contracts of 30 July and 16 December 2003 for waste water collection and disposal and the servicing, operation, maintenance and monitoring of the sewage system of the City of Hamm, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8, in conjunction with Titles III to VI of Directive 92/50/EEC; (1)

               —

               order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The subject-matter of the present claim is the contracts for pecuniary interest for waste water collection and disposal and the servicing, operation, maintenance and monitoring of the sewage system of the City of Hamm, which that City concluded with a legally-constituted sewage group, the Lippeverband. The Lippeverband is a public-law body required to fulfil tasks prescribed by law in the field of water management. Around 25 % of its members are private undertakings. Under the contracts at issue, the Lippeverband was to have taken over the collection and disposal of waste water in the area of the City of Hamm on 1 January 2004, for which purpose the City set up a remuneration package declared as a ‘special-interest contribution’. In order to have that service responsibility undertaken, the City of Hamm transfers the right to exclusive, long-term and comprehensive use of its sewage installations, for which the Lippeverband is to make a compensatory payment.
   Although the service contracts in question are public service contracts within the meaning of Article 1(a) of Directive 92/50/EEC, they were concluded directly with the Lippeverband without a formal contract award procedure or a Europe-wide invitation to tender. The contracts are clearly to be classified as service contracts for pecuniary interest. They have been concluded by a public contracting authority for an unspecified period, have as their subject-matter the supply of waste-water disposal services within the meaning of Category 16 of Annex IA to that directive, and significantly exceed the threshold for application of the directive. Conclusion of the contracts should therefore have been subject to a Europe-wide invitation to tender.
   Contrary to the assertions of the German Government, the transfer of the supply of services in question is neither a State measure of organisation nor a so-called ‘in-house’ award.
   Firstly, it is doubtful whether a service responsibility can be transferred to a semi-public water authority such as the Lippeverband by a measure of State organisation, with approximately 25 % of private investors, without there being a Community contract award procedure. In the Commission’s view, measures of State organisation, to which the provisions on the award of public contracts do not apply, are conceivable only between public institutions, whose activities serve exclusively the public interest. The fact that water authorities are entrusted by law with certain responsibilities in respect of sewage management does not alter in any way the fact that the Lippeverband is not part of the national administrative organisation for the purposes of Community law. Irrespective, however, of whether that responsibility can be transferred to the Lippeverband by a measure of State organisation, in the present case there is no such transfer of responsibility. The fact that the City of Hamm pays an annual remuneration for the supply of the services by the Lippeverband clearly places those contracts in the category of service contracts for pecuniary interest and excludes the possibility of there being a transfer of responsibility as part of public administration.
   Secondly, as regards the exclusion of a so-called ‘in-house’ transaction from application of the rules governing the award of public contracts, in accordance with the case-law of the Court of Justice, those exceptions cannot apply where a private undertaking has a holding, even a minority one — in the institution given that responsibility. In such a case, the public awarding authority cannot have the same control over the undertaking in question as over its own services.
   It follows from that analysis that this is a public service contract for pecuniary interest and no exempting provisions apply. Thus, by the direct award by the City of Hamm of the city sewage contracts, the Federal Republic of Germany has infringed the provisions of Directive 92/50.

      (1)  Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1).


title: Case C-404/00: Action brought on 7 November 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

text:
C 28/12                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      27.1.2001
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Action brought on 7 November 2000 by the Commission
                                                                         of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                                Spain
—     annul the decision of the Commission of 22 August 2000
      in respect of all the measures it relates to with the
      exception of the grant of June 1998;                                                        (Case C-404/00)
—     order the defendant institution to pay the costs.
                                                                                (2001/C 28/21)
                                                                         An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Court of Justice of the European Communities on 7 November
                                                                         2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
—     The present action is directed against the decision of the         represented by Klaus-Dieter Borchardt and Stefan Rating, of its
      Commission initiating the formal investigation provided            Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
      for under Article 88(2) EC into the injection of capital           Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
      and regional aid given to Santana Motor SA, taking                 Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
      the view that this was new aid, and suspending its
      implementation. The Spanish authorities however regard
      the measures to which the contested decision relates to            The applicant claims that the Court should:
      be existing aid. The aid, which was duly notified on
      30 July and 17 November 1999 (capital injection and
      regional aid respectively), became existent by virtue of           —     Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
      Article 4(6) of Council Regulation No 659/99 (1). By letter              within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
      of 28 July 2000 transmitted by fax on the same day, the                  administrative provisions necessary to comply with Com-
      Spanish authorities informed the Commission that the                     mission Decision 2000/131/EC of 26 October 1999 (1)
      Junta de Andalucı́a was about to implement the measures                  declaring certain aid granted to the group of publicly
      notified to the Commission. The fact that that communi-                  owned shipyards in Spain to have been granted illegally
      cation was registered by the Commission on 31 July, or                   and, moreover, incompatible with the common market,
      3 days later, does not change the date on which the fax                  Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      was received, which is the transmission date.                            Article 249 of the EC Treaty and Articles 2 and of that
                                                                               directive; and
      The contested decision dated 22 August was notified on
      23 August 2000, when the 15 working days on which                  —     Order Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
      the Commission relied had expired.
      Likewise, a fax of 17 August and a letter of 21 August,            Pleas in law and main arguments
      prior to the date of the contested decision, informing the
      recipient that the Commission had ‘adopted’ that decision,
      cannot be regarded in any way as notification of the
      formal decision to initiate the investigation pursuant to          Under Article 249 of the EC Treaty, Decision 2000/131/EC of
      Article 4 of Regulation 659/99.                                    26 October 1999 is to be binding in its entirety upon Kingdom
                                                                         of Spain, the Member State to which it is addressed, by virtue
                                                                         of the notification served upon it on 2 December 1999.
—     (In the alternative) Inadequate statement of reasons               Although Article 243 EC provides for Court of Justice to
                                                                         prescribe any necessary interim measures, the Kingdom of
                                                                         Spain, which had brought an action for annulment under
      The contested decision was adopted by the Commission               Article 230 EC against the decision (Case C-36/00), has not to
      only in order to circumvent the deadline after which they          date submitted any request to that effect. Thus, the decision in
      became ‘existent’, and are not a reflection of a certainty         question remains binding in its entirety in respect of the
      that the measures are incompatible with the Treaty, nor            Kingdom of Spain. The Spanish Government has not complied
      that there was a need for more information than was                with the decision without it being possible to consider such
      received.                                                          failure justified by an ‘absolute impossibility’.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying
    down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC      (1) On the State aid implemented by Spain in favour of the publicly
    Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).                                             owned shipyards (OJ 2000 L 37, p. 22).


title: Case C-601/11 P: Appeal brought on 28 November 2011 by the French Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 9 September 2011 in Case T-257/07 France v Commission

text:
               17.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/5

         Appeal brought on 28 November 2011 by the French Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 9 September 2011 in Case T-257/07 France v Commission
   (Case C-601/11 P)
   2012/C 80/07
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, G. de Bergues, C. Candat, S. Menez and R. Loosli-Surrans, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 9 September 2011 in Case T-257/07 France v Commission;

               —

               give final judgment in the dispute by annulling Commission Regulation (EC) No 746/2008 of 17 June 2008 amending Annex VII to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, (1) or refer the case back to the General Court;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The French Government raises four pleas in law in support of its application.
   By its first plea in law, the appellant submits that the General Court infringed its obligation to state reasons by failing to respond sufficiently (i) to the appellant’s complaints that the Commission had failed to take account of the scientific data available, in so far as the General Court mistakenly found that those complaints amounted to an allegation that the Commission had had no knowledge of such data, and (ii) to the French Government’s complaints relating to infringement of Article 24a of Regulation No 999/2001, in so far as the General Court found that those complaints effectively established that the contested measures were appropriate for the purpose of ensuring a high level of human health protection.
   By its second plea in law, which is divided into three parts, the French Government submits that the General Court distorted the facts put before it. Thus, the appellant submits, first of all, that the General Court distorted the opinions of the European Food Safety Authority (‘EFSA’) of 8 March 2007 and 24 January 2008 when it found that the Commission had been entitled, without manifest error of assessment, to infer from those opinions that the risk of transmissibility to humans of TSE other than BSE was extremely low (first part). By the second part, the appellant submits that the General Court distorted the opinions of EFSA of 17 May and 26 September 2005 when it found that the Commission had been entitled, without manifest error of assessment, to take the view that the evaluation of the reliability of the rapid tests that is included in those opinions was valid in relation to the use of those tests in controlling the release for human consumption of meat from ovine or caprine animals. Finally, by the third part, the French Government submits that the General Court distorted the facts put before it, by finding that all of the scientific evidence relied on by the Commission in order to justify the adoption of the contested measures of Regulation No 746/2008 constituted new evidence in relation to the earlier preventive measures.
   By its third plea in law, the French Government submits that the General Court erred in the legal characterisation of the facts when it characterised the scientific evidence relied on by the Commission as new evidence capable of altering the perception of the risk or showing that that risk can be contained by measures that are less restrictive than existing measures.
   By its fourth plea in law, which is in three parts, the appellant takes the view that the General Court erred in law in the application of the precautionary principle. In that context, the appellant submits, first of all, that the General Court erred in law in finding that the Commission had not infringed Article 24a of Regulation No 999/2001 since, according to the General Court, the Commission had complied with the obligation contained in Article 152(1) EC to ensure a high level of human health protection. By the second part of its plea, the French Government submits that the General Court erred in law in assuming that the scientific evidence relied on by the Commission in order to justify the adoption of Regulation No 746/2008 necessarily had to entail a change in the level of risk deemed acceptable. In the alternative, the French Government submits that the General Court erred in law in failing to ascertain whether, in determining the level of risk deemed acceptable, the Commission took into account the gravity and irreversibility of the adverse effects of TSEs on human health. Finally, by the third part, the French Government submits that the General Court erred in law in failing to take account of the fact that Regulation No 746/2008 does not replace the earlier preventive measures but supplements them with more flexible alternative measures.

      (1)  OJ 2008 L 202, p. 11.


title: Action brought on 16 March 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain (Case C-73/98)

text:
16.5.98               EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 151/7
    What must be the rate that it is legally appropriate to       requirements laid down in the Annex and Article 5) and
    adopt, in the absence of any applicable domestic law          on 31 December 1994 (as regards the remainder of the
    and of any choice thus made by the Member State               provisions).
    within the bracket allowed by the directive?
                                                                  (1) OJ L 340, 31.12.1993, p. 15.
                                                                  (2) OJ C 137, 2.5.1998, p. 12.
    In other words, what must be the scope of the
    directive in such circumstances and must it be
    considered that the applicable rate is: 1 %? 0 %? and
    why not 0,25 % or 0,50 %?
(1) OJ L 103, 18.4.1973, p. 15.
(2) OJ L 249, 3.10.1969, p. 25.
(3) OJ L 156, 15.6.1985, p. 23.                                         Removal from the register of Case C-287/97 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 151/12)
                                                                  By order of 17 September 1997, the President of the Court
                                                                  of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
                                                                  removal from the register of Case C-287/97: (Reference
                                                                  for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
Action brought on 16 March 1998 by the Commission of              Bassano del Grappa): Claudio Matteazzi v. Caseificio
 the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain            Sociale S. Rocco Scarl.
                       (Case C-73/98)
                                                                  (1) OJ C 295, 27.9.1997.
                        (98/C 151/11)
An action against Kingdom of Spain was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
16 March 1998 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Juan Guerra FernaÂndez and
                                                                        Removal from the register of Case C-160/97 (1)
GeÂrard Berscheid, acting as Agents, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la                                 (98/C 151/13)
Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                  By order of 4 December 1997, the President of the Court
The applicant claims that the Court should:                       of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
                                                                  removal from the register of Case C-160/97: Commission
                                                                  of the European Communities v. Italian Republic.
Ð declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force,
    or to notify, the laws, regulations or administrative         (1) OJ C 199, 28.6.1997.
    provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
    85/73/EEC on the financing of health inspections and
    controls of fresh meat and poultrymeat (1) as amended
    by Council Directive 93/118/EEC of 22 December
    1993, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its
    obligations under the EC Treaty, and
                                                                        Removal from the register of Case C-173/97 (1)
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.                                                   (98/C 151/14)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:               By order of 4 December 1997, the President of the Court
                                                                  of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
                                                                  removal from the register of Case C-173/97: Commission
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to              of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic.
those in Case C-66/98 (2); the period for implemen-
tation expired on 31 December 1993 (as regards the                (1) OJ C 199, 28.6.1997.


title: Case T-384/11: Action brought on 22 July 2011 — Safa Nicu Sepahan v Council

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/31

         Action brought on 22 July 2011 — Safa Nicu Sepahan v Council
   (Case T-384/11)
   2011/C 282/63
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Safa Nicu Sepahan (Isfahan, Iran) (represented by: A. Bahrami, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that entry No. 19 of Annex VIII to Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1), as amended by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2011 of 23 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 136, p. 26), is null and void;

               —

               Declare that the defendant has violated Article 265 TFEU by failing to examine the applicant’s request dated 7 June 2011 for reconsideration of entry No 19;

               —

               Order removal of the name of the applicant from EU list of sanctions;

               —

               Award the applicant compensation, for an amount to be determined in the course of the present proceedings, but not less than EUR 2 000 000,00; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Council committed a manifest error of appreciation as the inclusion of the name of the applicant on the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures is erroneous, misleading, unspecific, incomplete and, therefore, plainly illegal.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has manifestly failed to state the reasons for the inclusion of the name of the applicant on the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures.


title: Case T-107/03: Action brought on 20 March 2003 by Regione Marche against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 124/28               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                            24.5.2003
Action brought on 20 March 2003 by Regione Marche                          undertakings in the region, there is nothing in the relevant
    against Commission of the European Communities                         provisions to indicate the existence of an obligation incumbent
                                                                           on the Marche Regional authority requiring Marche Capital to
                                                                           expend all the resources granted to it before the IPM Marche
                         (Case T-107/03)                                   expired.
                        (2003/C 124/48)                                    The applicant also maintains that the contested decision
                                                                           infringes the principles of legal certainty and sound adminis-
                                                                           tration. By approving the agreement concluded between
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           Società Marche Capital and the Marche Region, the Com-
                                                                           mission gave rise to a legitimate expectation on the part of the
                                                                           Marche Region that it could make use of the whole of the
                                                                           contribution granted to it, provided the methods of financing
                                                                           were in conformity with the agreement itself, which was in
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           fact the case. According to the applicant, the Commission also
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           infringed the principle of sound administration in that, first, it
European Communities on 20 March 2003 by Regione
                                                                           adopted the decision definitively bringing to an end the IPM
Marche, represented by Aurelio Pappalardo and Massimo
                                                                           Marche nearly 8 years after it had expired and, secondly, it was
Merola, lawyers.
                                                                           largely inactive throughout that period.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                Finally, the aplicant takes the view that the Commission
                                                                           infringed Article 253 EC.
—     annul the decision of the Commission adopted by letter
      of 18 December 2002 and every other measure connected
      with it and consequent upon it;                                      (1 ) Bollettino Ufficiale (official journal) for the Regione Marche
                                                                                (supplement No 10 of 28 July 1988).
                                                                           (2 ) OJ 1985 L 197, p. 1.
—     order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by
      Regione Marche for the purpose of the proceedings,
      including legal fees.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           Action brought on 27 March 2003 by T against Com-
The present application seeks the annulment of the decision                             mission of the European Communities
of 18 December 2002 by which the European Commission
announced that it was definitively concluding the Integrated
Mediterranean Programme (IMP) for the Marche Region ( 1),                                             (Case T-111/03)
approved by way of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2088/85 (2)
of 23 July 1985 concerning the integrated Mediterranean
                                                                                (2003/C 124/49)
programmes on the basis of information provided by the
applicant by memorandum of 6 September 2002.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
According to the contested decision, investments in the
beneficiary undertakings did not adhere to the prescribed
timetable so far as concerns phase 3 of the programme in
question.                                                                  An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 27 March 2003 by T, residing in
                                                                           Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersanden, lawyer.
The applicant argues that there is no legal basis for the
contested measure inasmuch as the Commission bases its own
decision on the failure of the Marche Region to observe
obligations which were not imposed by the applicable legis-                The applicant claims that the Court should:
lation. Irrespective of the fact that the Commission accused
the applicant of not using fully, by the end of the IPM, the               —      annul the decision of the appointing authority of
contribution granted to Società Marche Capital, a body set up                     14 August 2002 not to promote the applicant in the
to promote the development of small and medium-sized                              2002 promotions procedure to Grade A 4,


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 26 November 1997 in Case T-39/97: T. Port GmbH & Co v. Commission of the European Communities (Agriculture - Common organization of the markets - Bananas - Request for the issue of additional import licences - Action for declaration of failure to act - Procedure by default - No need to adjudicate)

text:
24.1.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 26/7
Republic of Germany (Agents: Ernst Röder, Bernd Kloke              2. The applicant is ordered to pay all the costs of the
and, at the hearing, Michael Schütte) and by MTW                       application for interim relief.
Schiffswerft GmbH, (formerly Meerestechnik Werft), with
its registered office at Wismar (Germany), represented by
Hans-Jürgen Rabe and Georg M. Berrisch, Rechtsanwälte,             3. Each party is to bear its own costs in respect of the
Hamburg, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                  application for a declaration of failure to act.
the chambers of FrancËois Turk, 13B Avenue Guillaume Ð
application for taxation of the costs to be paid by the
                                                                   (1) OJ C 131, 26.4.1997.
applicants to the intervener, MTW Schiffswerft GmbH,
following the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
22 October 1996 in Case T-266/94 Skibsvñrftsforeningen
a.O. v. Commission [1996] ECR II-1399 Ð the Court of
First Instance (First Chamber, Extended Composition),
composed of A. Saggio, President, B. Vesterdorf, C. W.
Bellamy, R. M. Moura Ramos and J. Pirrung, Judges; H.
Jung, Registrar, made an order on 24 November 1997, the            Action brought on 10 November 1997 by Peter Cain
operative part of which is as follows:                                against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-289/97)
The total amount of costs to be paid by the applicants to                                   (98/C 26/14)
the intervener MTW Schiffswerft GmbH is fixed at
DM 125 000.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
( ) OJ C 254, 10.9.1994.
 1
                                                                   An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                   Instance of the European Communities on 10 November
                                                                   1997 by Peter Cain, residing at Trier (Federal Republic of
                                                                   Germany), represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, Thierry
                                                                   Demaseure, Ariane Tornel and FrancËoise Parmentier, of
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                   the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
                    of 26 November 1997                            Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SaÁrl, 30
                                                                   Rue de Cessange.
in Case T-39/97: T. Port GmbH & Co v. Commission of
                the European Communities (1)
(Agriculture Ð Common organization of the markets Ð                The applicant claims that the Court should:
Bananas Ð Request for the issue of additional import
licences Ð Action for declaration of failure to act Ð
      Procedure by default Ð No need to adjudicate)                Ð annul the decision of 12 March 1997 appointing the
                                                                       applicant, with effect from 1 February 1997, to grade
                         (98/C 26/13)
                                                                       LA 7, step 3 within the translators' career bracket,
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                   Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
In Case T-39/97: T. Port GmbH & Co, established in
Hamburg (Germany), represented by Gert Meier,                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Rechtsanwalt, Cologne, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Baden, 24 Rue
Marie-Adelaïde, against Commission of the European                 By decision of 26 February 1996, which took effect
Communities (Agents: Dierk Booû, Klaus-Dieter                      retroactively on 1 January 1996, the applicant was
Borchardt and Hubert van Vliet) Ð application for a                appointed a probationer official in grade LA 7, step 1 and
declaration pursuant to Article 175 of the Treaty that the         assigned to the Translation Service, Directorate G Ð
Commission has failed to take a position on the                    Eurostat, information and innovation, credit and
applicant's request of 16 December 1996 for the issue of           investments, Publications Office and ECSC, English
additional import licences as a transitional measure under         Language Unit, in Luxembourg. He was established in his
the common organization of the markets in the banana               post by decision of 28 October 1996, which took effect on
sector Ð the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),             1 November 1996.
composed of P. Lindh, President, and K. Lenaerts and J. D.
Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order the
operative part of which is as follows:                             The act complained of is the decision of 12 March 1997
                                                                   annulling and replacing that of 26 February 1996, by
                                                                   which the appointing authority appointed the applicant a
1. There is no need to adjudicate.                                 probationer official in grade LA 7, step 3.


title: Action brought on 5 January 1998 by Mitteldeutsche Erdöl-Raffinerie GmbH (MIDER) against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-9/98)

text:
7.3.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 72/25
producers, there was a degree of participation or                 Convention on Human Rights under the European rule of
knowledge on the part of third-country producers, notably         law; the proceedings leading up to the contested decision
in Japan and Latin America.                                       were not so conducted.
                                                                  Finally, the applicant maintains that the inadequate
The contested decision, addressed to Dalmine, the Techint        reasoning of the contested decision and the ineffective
Group' and the applicant (c/o Dalmine'), ordered the             notification of that decision to the applicant constitute
addressees to answer certain questions appended to that           independent and additional grounds for annulment on the
decision within 30 days from the date of its notification.        basis of Articles 190 and 191 of the EC Treaty.
The decision imposed on each of the addressees a penalty
of ECU 1 000 for each day of delay in providing the
information requested.                                            (1) Case T-596/97 (not yet published in the Official Journal).
The applicant points out that the contested decision refers
several times to the Techint Group', which is one of the
addressees of that decision. However, the Techint Group'
is no more than a name used to designate various                  Action brought on 5 January 1998 by Mitteldeutsche
companies engaged in different businesses and having in           Erdöl-Raffinerie GmbH (MIDER) against the Commission
common the fact that some or all of their shares are                              of the European Communities
ultimately owned by San Faustin NV. It is not a legal
                                                                                (Case T-9/98)
entity. No company bearing the Techint' name is engaged
in the manufacture of steel pipes.                                                          (98/C 72/56)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
The applicant submits that the defendant, by adopting the
contested decision, has sought to exercise its enforcement
jurisdiction extraterritorially. Public international law         An action against the Commission of the European
recognises and respects the separation between the legal          Communities was brought before the Court of First
personality of a corporation and that of its owners and           Instance of the European Communities on 5 January 1998
between a subsidiary and its parent. The decision, by             by Mitteldeutsche Erdöl-Raffinerie GmbH (MIDER),
asserting jurisdiction over a parent company by virtue of         whose registered office is at Spergau, Germany,
its 47 % shareholding in a European company, violates             represented by Michael Schütte and Martina Maier,
this principle. The defendant does not have the power to          Rechtsanwälte, Brussels, with an address for service in
take action against a third-country company merely                Luxembourg at the Chambers of Messrs Bonn and
because the company owns shares in a European affiliate.          Schmitt, 62 Avenue Guillaume.
                                                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
Furthermore, the defendant infringed Article 11(5) of
Regulation No 17/62 because it lacked jurisdiction to
address to the applicant a mandatory request for
information; it also infringed Articles 15(5) and 16(1)(c)        Ð annul Commission Decision C(97) 3136 final of
of that regulation. As the defendant did not have                      1 October 1997 in so far as it affects the applicant,
jurisdiction to request information from the applicant, it             and especially in so far as it holds the application of
follows that it likewise lacked jurisdiction to impose a               Paragraph 18.1 of the Jahressteuergesetz (Annual Tax
penalty of ECU 1 000 per day and that did so in breach of              Law) 1996 to the applicant's project to be
Article 16(1)(c).                                                      incompatible with the common market and requires
                                                                       the aids paid to the applicant pursuant to that
                                                                       provision to be repaid,
As the imposition of periodic penalty payments on the
applicant must be annulled for lack of competence, in             Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
breach of Article 16(1)(c), this circumstance alone would
also constitute sufficient ground for declaring void the
collective imposition of those payments on Dalmine. The           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
decision should be annulled because it violated the
applicant's fundamental procedural right to remain silent
without self-incrimination in the face of what were               The applicant, and indirect subsidiary of Elf Aquitaine SA,
effectively criminal charges. An investigation by the             Paris, was incorporated for the purpose of establishing a
defendant under Regulation No 17/62 into suspected                new refinery at Leuna (in the Bundesland of Saxony-
infringements must be conducted in accordance with the            Anhalt). The total amount of the investment was to be in
fair procedures guaranteed by Article 6 of the European           the area of DM 4,88 billion. In order to make that
 ---pagebreak--- C 72/26              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    7.3.98
investment possible, not only investment aid was provided           moreover, erroneously classified by the Commission as
but also investment grants of 8 % under the Investitionszu-         operational aids, even though, under both the criteria
lagengesetz (Investment Grants Law) 1993, to which each             recognised by the Commission itself and those recognised
investor in the new Bundesländer was statutorily entitled           by the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance,
on fulfilling the conditions. The Investitionszulagengesetz         they were unambiguously dependent upon the carrying
1993 was approved by the Commission as an aid                       out of investments and could thus be regarded only as
programme and provided, inter alia, that the investments            investment aids. Because of that misclassification, the
benefiting from the programme had to be concluded                   Commission left the provisions of Article 92(3)(a) of the
before 1 January 1997. Through circumstances outside the            EC Treaty unapplied, even though they were relevant in
applicant's control (e.g. numerous bomb finds on the                this case (in so far as the aid was not in any event
construction site), it became apparent that completion by           compatible with the common market under Article 92(2)(c)
the end of December 1996 was impossible in practical                of the Treaty).
terms. Therefore, on the initiative of the Bundesland
Saxony-Anhalt, a bill to amend the Investitionszulagenge-           3. Infringement of the general Community law principle
setz was introduced, and, during 1995 in connection with            of proportionality, as expressed in Article 3b of the EC
the Jahressteuergesetz 1996, the amendment was decided              Treaty, in that the Commission declared Paragraph 18.1 of
upon. Paragraph 18.1 of the Jahressteuergesetz 1996                 the Jahressteuergesetz 1996 as a whole, and thus in
inserted into Paragraph 3.1.3 of the Investitionszulagenge-         relation to the applicant also, to be incompatible with the
setz, for the date by which the investments were to be              common market.
completed, the year 1999' instead of 1997' (i.e. requiring
completion before 1 January 1999).                                  The applicant submits that it was thereby affected to an
                                                                    extent which was disproportionate and not necessary in
                                                                    achieving the Commission's purpose. The Commission
In the contested decision, the Commission held that to be           could have declared Paragraph 18.1 incompatible with the
a new, additional State aid, which was unlawful and                 common market only in so far as projects other than the
incompatible with the common market. It called upon the             applicant's were concerned. That would have been
Federal Republic of Germany to annul Paragraph 18.1 of              appropriate from the European law standpoint and
the Jahressteuergesetz 1996 and to reclaim all aids granted         possible from the point of view of German law.
thereunder.
                                                                    4. Breach of essential procedural requirements
The applicant makes four legal arguments:
                                                                    The Commission erroneously classified the investment
                                                                    grant relating to the applicant, in the version appearing in
1. Failure to apply Article 92(2)(c) of the EC Treaty               Paragraph 18.1 of the Jahressteuergesetz 1996, as a new
                                                                    additional aid, rather than (correctly) as an approved
                                                                    existing aid. As a result, it failed to adopt the correct
The Commission should have verified whether that                    procedure and propose an appropriate measure to the
derogation applied, especially as the Federal Republic of           Federal Republic of Germany. Moreover, the reasons
Germany had expressly requested that it should be                   stated for the decision were not sufficient and infringed
applied. In its notice on the opening of the main                   Article 190 of the EC Treaty.
verification procedure, the Commission expressed the view
that the rule could not apply. Although, in the course of
the procedure, the Federal Republic of Germany made
further submissions as to the applicability of the rule and
the existence of the conditions, especially in relation to the
applicant, the Commission carried out no verification               Action brought on 9 January 1998 by A. A. M. van Hest
whatever. Since, moreover, no reasons were stated for the           against the Council of the European Union and the
failure to apply the rule, the applicant maintains that there                Commission of the European Communities
has been a breach of Article 190 of the EC Treaty. The                                     (Case T-11/98)
requirements of Article 92(2)(c) of the EC Treaty had been
                                                                                (98/C 72/57)
fulfilled, since the Saxony-Anhalt region was an area
affected by the division of Germany, and the aid was
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
required in order to compensate for the disadvantages
caused. Paragraph 18.1 of the Jahressteuergesetz 1996 was
therefore compatible with the common market pursuant                An action against the Council of the European Union and
to Article 92(2)(c) of the EC Treaty, at least in so far as         the Commission of the European Communities was
the applicant's project was concerned.                              brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                    Communities on 9 January 1998 by A. A. M. van Hest, of
                                                                    Moergestel (Netherlands), represented by A. A. M. Beek,
2. Defective application of Article 92(3) of the EC Treaty          of the Tilburg Bar.
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
The Commission failed to recognise that the extension of
the investment period did not constitute an additional aid          Ð declare that the European Economic Community is
over and above the investment grants. Those grants were,                liable in damages to the applicant,


title: Case T-411/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of 29 June 2007 — Keppenne v Commission

text:
               22.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/17

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 29 June 2007 — Keppenne v Commission
   (Case T-411/04) (1)

   (2007/C 223/29)

      Language of the case: French

   The President of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 300, 4.12.2004.


title: Judgment of the Court of 9 December 2003 in Case C-116/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck): Erich Gasser GmbH v MISAT Srl (Brussels Convention — Article 21 — Lis pendens — Article 17 — Agreement conferring jurisdiction — Obligation to stay proceedings of court second seised designated in an agreement conferring jurisdiction — Excessive duration of proceedings before courts in the Member State of the court first seised)

text:
24.1.2004                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                                  C 21/7
2.    The principle of non-discrimination laid down by Article 7(4)          Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom
      of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October            of Sweden (OJ 1997 C 15, p. 1), the Court, composed
      1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the                     of: V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C. W. A. Timmermans,
      Community does not preclude a person carrying on an activity           C. Gulmann, J. N. Cunha Rodrigues and A. Rosas (Presidents
      as a post-graduate student, such as the person in the main             of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet,
      proceedings, from being deemed, in a Member State, to be a             R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), F. Macken, N. Colneric and S. von
      trainee fellowship student who is not entitled to any rights           Bahr, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Princi-
      under the national system of unemployment benefits, even               pal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
      though in other Member States a person carrying on similar             9 December 2003, in which it has ruled:
      activities is deemed to be carrying on an occupational activity
      and is entitled to benefits under the unemployment benefits
      system.
                                                                             1.   A national court may, under the Protocol of 3 June 1971 on
(1) OJ C 118 of 18.5.2002.                                                        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, as 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, by the Convention of
                                                                                25 October 1982 on the accession of the Hellenic Republic, by
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                          the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the accession of the
                                                                                Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic and by the
                                                                                Convention of 29 November 1996 on the accession of the
                         of 9 December 2003                                       Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom
                                                                                of Sweden, refer to the Court of Justice a request for interpret-
in Case C-116/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                         ation of the Brussels Convention, even where it relies on the
the Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck): Erich Gasser GmbH v                             submissions of a party to the main proceedings of which it has
                             MISAT Srl (1)                                        not yet examined the merits, provided that it considers, having
                                                                                regard to the particular circumstances of the case, that a
                                                                                preliminary ruling is necessary to enable it to give judgment
(Brussels Convention — Article 21 — Lis pendens —
                                                                                and that the questions on which it seeks a ruling from the Court
Article 17 — Agreement conferring jurisdiction — Obli-
                                                                                are relevant. It is nevertheless incumbent on the national court
gation to stay proceedings of court second seised designated
                                                                                to provide the Court of Justice with factual and legal information
in an agreement conferring jurisdiction — Excessive duration
                                                                                enabling it to give a useful interpretation of the Convention and
of proceedings before courts in the Member State of the court
                                                                                to explain why it considers that a reply to its questions is
                              first seised)
                                                                                necessary to enable it to give judgment.
                            (2004/C 21/12)
                     (Language of the case: German)                          2.   Article 21 of the Brussels Convention must be interpreted as
                                                                                meaning that a court second seised whose jurisdiction has been
                                                                                claimed under an agreement conferring jurisdiction must
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published            nevertheless stay proceedings until the court first seised has
                     in the European Court Reports)                               declared that it has no jurisdiction.
In Case C-116/02: Reference to the Court under the Protocol
                                                                             3.   Article 21 of the Brussels Convention must be interpreted as
of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of
                                                                                meaning that it cannot be derogated from where, in general,
the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the
                                                                                the duration of proceedings before the courts of the Contracting
Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters
                                                                                State in which the court first seised is established is excessively
by the Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck (Austria) for a preliminary
                                                                                long.
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Erich Gasser GmbH and MISAT Srl, on the interpretation of
Article 21 of the abovementioned Convention of 27 September
1968, as 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                     (1) OJ C 144 of 15.6.2002.
1978 L 304, p. 1, and — amended text — 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
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


title: Case T-595/15: Order of the General Court of 14 June 2016 — Europäischer Tier- und Naturschutz and Giesen v Commission (Action for annulment — Alleged refusal to submit a legislative proposal for the establishment of a European law association — Act not amenable to review — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               1.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/28

         Order of the General Court of 14 June 2016 — Europäischer Tier- und Naturschutz and Giesen v Commission
   (Case T-595/15) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Alleged refusal to submit a legislative proposal for the establishment of a European law association - Act not amenable to review - Manifest inadmissibility))
   (2016/C 279/42)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Europäischer Tier- und Naturschutz eV (Much, Germany) and Horst Giesen (Much) (represented by: P. Brockmann, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Krämer and K.-P. Wojcik, Agents)

      Re

   Action on the basis of Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of the Commission’s letter of 17 August 2015 by which it declined to submit a legislative proposal aimed at establishing a European association.

      Operative part

               1)

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2)

               Europäischer Tier- und Naturschutz eV and Horst Giesen are ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.


title: Case T-84/01: Action brought on 1 April 2001 by the Association Contre l'Horaire d'Été against the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union

text:
16.6.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 173/37
—     the contested decision is arbitrary and disproportionate,          Action brought on 1 April 2001 by the Association
      inasmuch as it does not analyse the possibility of                 Contre l’Horaire d’Été against the European Parliament
      excluding from its scope part of the Normas Forales                           and the Council of the European Union
      which it envisages.
—     the procedure laid down in the ‘Steel Aid Code’ was                                         (Case T-84/01)
      infringed, inter alia by exceeding the time-limit of
      3 months prescribed in Article 6(5) of Decision
      2496/96/ECSC.                                                                              (2001/C 173/67)
(1) OJ 2001 L 76, p. 57.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         An action against the European Parliament and the Council of
                                                                         the European Union was brought before the Court of First
Action brought on 10 April 2001 by Merck KgaA against                    Instance of the European Communities on 1 April 2001 by
    the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market                  the Association Contre l’Horaire d’Été, established at Marly-le-
                                                                         Roi (France), represented by Corinne Lepage and François
                          (Case T-83/01)                                 Steinmetz, avocats.
                         (2001/C 173/66)
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                         —     annul Directive 2000/84/EC of the European Parliament
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                 and of the Council of 19 January 2001 on summer-time
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                   arrangements, published in the Official Journal of the
European Communities on 10 April 2001 by Merck KgaA, a                         European Communities on 2 February 2001.
company established under the laws of Germany, represented
by Dominique Dupuis Latour of BPDAGI, Paris (France).
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     set aside the contested decision;                                  The applicant in the present case, an association formed to
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                              draw the attention of the public to the alleged drawbacks
                                                                         arising from ‘changing the clocks’, seeks annulment of Direc-
                                                                         tive 2000/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Pleas in law and main arguments:                                         Council of 19 January 2001 on summer-time arrangements.
Trade mark concerned:         OSTEOCALCIUM — registration
                              n. 0000955138.                             In support of its claims, the applicant maintains:
Product or service:           ‘Pharmaceutical; veterinary and
                              sanitary preparations’ (class 5 of         —     that the wrong legal basis has been chosen (Article 95 of
                              the Nice Agreement).                             the Treaty, formerly Article 100a), inasmuch as the
                                                                               directive at issue does not satisfy the twofold condition
Challenged        Decision    Refusal of registration of the trade             of participating in the approximation of the provisions
before the Board of           mark in question, because of its                 laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in
Appeal:                       alleged descriptive character.                   Member States and having as its objective the establish-
Grounds submitted:            Infringement of Article 7 (1) c)                 ment and functioning of the internal market;
                              and b) of Regulation (EC)
                              No 40/94.                                  —     that the directive at issue will result in drawbacks and
                                                                               dangers to individuals, which should be seen as obstacles
                                                                               to the proper functioning of the internal market.


title: Case C-142/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Dendermonde (Belgium) lodged on 22 April 2009 — Criminal proceedings against V.W. Lahousse & Lavichy BVBA

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/25

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Dendermonde (Belgium) lodged on 22 April 2009 — Criminal proceedings against V.W. Lahousse & Lavichy BVBA
   (Case C-142/09)
   2009/C 153/45
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Dendermonde

      Parties to the main proceedings

               Defendants:

               :

                           1.

                           V.W. Lahousse

                           2.

                           Lavichy BVBA

      Question referred

   Must Directive 2002/24/EC, (1) in particular Article 1(1)(d) thereof (according to which the directive does not apply to vehicles intended for use in competition, on roads or in off-road conditions), be interpreted as allowing the Member States to extend its scope so as to render it applicable to all traffic by land (that is to say, also to the use of two or three-wheel motor vehicles off-road and/or on private land), without granting the exception in respect of vehicles intended for use in competition on roads (racing) or for vehicles in off-road conditions?

      (1)  Directive 2002/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 March 2002 relating to the type-approval of two or three-wheel motor vehicles and repealing Council Directive 92/61/EEC (OJ 2002 L 124, p. 1).


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 April 2003 in Case C-277/01 P: European Parliament v Ignacio Samper (Appeals — Officials — Reconstruction of career — Consideration of comparative merits)

text:
21.6.2003                EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 146/11
      reunification of Germany, is henceforth incorporated in one of                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      the pre-existing länder of the Federal Republic of Germany
      under a treaty concluded after that date.
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
( 1) OJ C 275 of 29.9.2001.
                                                                                of 8 May 2003
                                                                               in Case C-384/01: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v French Republic ( 1)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                               (Failure of a State to fulfil obligations — Sixth VAT
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                     Directive — Article 12(3)(a) and (b) — Supplies of gas and
                                                                               electricity delivered by the public networks — Standing
                           of 3 April 2003                                               charge for supply networks — Reduced rate)
in Case C-277/01 P: European Parliament v Ignacio Samp-
                                  er (1)                                                                 (2003/C 146/19)
(Appeals — Officials — Reconstruction of career — Con-
                 sideration of comparative merits)                                                 (Language of the case: French)
                           (2003/C 146/18)
                                                                               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                     (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                               In Case C-384/01, Commission of the European Communities
                                                                               (Agents: E. Traversa and C. Giolito) v French Republic (Agents:
                                                                               G. de Bergues and P. Boussaroque): Application for a declar-
In Case C-277/01 P, European Parliament (Agents: H. von
                                                                               ation that, by applying a reduced rate of value added tax to the
Hertzen and D. Moore): Appeal against the judgment of the
                                                                               fixed part of the prices for gas and electricity supplied by the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth
                                                                               public networks, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
Chamber) of 3 May 2001 in Case T-99/00 Samper v Parliament
                                                                               obligations under Article 12(3)(a) and (b) of Sixth Council
[2001] ECR-SC I-A-111 and II-507, seeking to have that
                                                                               Directive 77/388/EC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation
judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings being:
                                                                               of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —
Ignacio Samper employee of the European Parliament, resident
                                                                               Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assess-
in Madrid (Spain), (represented by E. Boigelot), the Court
                                                                               ment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), as amended by Council Directive
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the
                                                                               96/95/EC of 20 December 1996 amending, with regard to the
Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. La Pergola, P. Jann and
                                                                               level of the standard rate of value added tax, Directive 77/388/
S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate
                                                                               EEC (OJ 1996 L 338, p. 89), the Court (Fifth Chamber),
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 April
                                                                               composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber,
2003, in which it has ruled:
                                                                               D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola, P. Jann and
                                                                               A. Rosas, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass,
1.    Annuls the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 3 May              Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 May 2003, in which it:
      2001 in Case T-99/00 Samper v Parliament;
2.    Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance for it to give       1.    Dismisses the application;
      judgment on the claims by Mr Samper for annulment of
      the decision of the European Parliament of 9 June 1999
      reconstructing his career, in so far as it sets at 1 January 1998        2.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay
      the date for his promotion to Grade A 4 to take effect;                        the costs.
3.    Reserves the costs.
                                                                               (1 ) OJ C 348 of 8.12.2001.
( 1) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.


title: Case T-354/05: Action brought on  19 September 2005  — TF1 v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               10.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/12

         Action brought on 19 September 2005 — TF1 v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-354/05)
   (2005/C 315/23)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Télévision Française 1 SA (Boulogne, France) (represented by: J.-P. Hordies, C. Smits, lawyers)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision given by the Commission on 20 April 2005 regarding the licence fee system in favour of France Télévision;

               —

               make an order as to costs in accordance with the law.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the present action, Télévision Française 1 seeks the annulment of the Commission decision of 20 April 2005 by which it declared compatible with the common market under Article 86(2) EC the licence fee system granted by the French authorities to France Télévision.
   The applicant relies on five pleas in support of its action for annulment, alleging, essentially:

               —

               insufficient statement of reasons for the decision;

               —

               failure to respect the right to be heard; the applicant complains that the Commission did not give it notice to submit its comments, in particular on the appropriateness and scope of undertakings made by the French State under the procedure for examining the aid in question, in spite of the existence of a dialogue and previous contacts between the applicant and the Commission;

               —

               the insufficient scope of the undertakings given by the French State; according to the applicant, the undertakings proposed are incapable of guaranteeing the compatibility of the French licence fee system with the applicable Community rules on State aid, in particular the rule of proportionality of public service funding and the obligation of transparency in the use of public funds;

               —

               abuse of process; the applicant criticises the conduct of the defendant which seems to remit to the national authorities responsibility for assessing whether a State support measure constitutes aid within the meaning of Community law, whereas that control comes within the exclusive competence of the Commission;

               —

               an error in law as to the applicability of Article 86(2) of the EC Treaty to aid resulting from overcompensation of the cost of public service obligations. The applicant challenges the Commission's interpretation of the decision in Altmark
                   (1) and its application in the present case. It claims that the defendant erred in law by examining whether a State measure to compensate for public service costs could be justified under Article 86(2) of the EC Treaty, when the Commission had itself found that that measure did not fulfil the conditions set out in the Altmark judgment.

      (1)  Case C-280/00 [2003] ECR I-7747.


title: Case T-18/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 April 2009 — CD-Contact Data v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for Nintendo video games consoles and games cartridges — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Limitation of parallel exports — Proof of the existence of an agreement to limit parallel trade — Fines — Differential treatment — Attenuating circumstances)

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/38

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 April 2009 — CD-Contact Data v Commission
   (Case T-18/03) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for Nintendo video games consoles and games cartridges - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Limitation of parallel exports - Proof of the existence of an agreement to limit parallel trade - Fines - Differential treatment - Attenuating circumstances)
   2009/C 141/76
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: CD-Contact Data GmbH (Burglengenfeld, Germany) (represented by: J. de Pree and R. Wesseling, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Oliver, X. Lewis and O. Beynet, Agents)

      Re:

   APPLICATION for the annulment of Commission Decision 2003/675/EC of 30 October 2002 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (COMP/35.587 PO Video Games, COMP/35.706 PO Nintendo Distribution and COMP/36.321 Omega — Nintendo) (OJ 2003 L 255, p. 33).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets the amount of the fine imposed on CD-Contact Data GmbH at EUR 500 000;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 70, 22.3.2003.