title: Case C-482/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart by order of 20 November 2001 in the case of Georgios Orfanopoulos, Natasha Orfanopoulos, Melina Orfanopoulos and Sofia Orfanopoulos against Land Baden-Württemberg

text:
2.3.2002                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 56/5
4.    Is the conclusion of a contract preceded by advertising            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-
      within the meaning of Article 13(3)(a) of the Convention           richt Stuttgart by order of 20 November 2001 in the case
      where the other party to the subsequent contract with              of Georgios Orfanopoulos, Natasha Orfanopoulos, Melina
      the consumer advertised his products by brochure in the            Orfanopoulos and Sofia Orfanopoulos against Land Ba-
      Contracting State of the consumer but did not advertise                                   den-Württemberg
      the products the consumer subsequently bought in it?
                                                                                (Case C-482/01)
5.    Is there a consumer contract within the meaning of
      Article 13 of the Convention where the seller makes an                                      (2002/C 56/10)
      offer by telephone from his own State to the buyer who
      lives in a different State, and the offer is not accepted but
      the buyer subsequently buys the product thus offered in
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      response to a written offer?
                                                                         European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht
                                                                         Stuttgart (Finance Court Stuttgart) of 20 November 2001,
6.    Does the consumer take the steps necessary for the                 received at the Court Registry on 13 December 2001, for a
      conclusion of the contract in his own State within the             preliminary ruling in the case of Georgios Orfanopoulos,
      meaning of Article 13(3)(b) of the Convention where an             Natasha Orfanopoulos, Melina Orfanopoulos and Sofia Orfa-
      offer is made to him in the State of his contracting               nopoulos against Land Baden-Württemberg on the following
      partner and he accepts that offer by telephone from his            questions:
      own State?
                                                                         1.   Is a restriction on the freedom of movement of a foreign
                                                                              EU national with many year’s residence in a host State,
                                                                              ordered on account of a criminal offence under the
                                                                              Betäubungsmittelgesetz (Law on Narcotics), in conformity
                                                                              with European Law in terms of Article 39(3) EC on
                                                                              grounds of public policy, public security or public health,
                                                                              where, on account of his personal conduct, there is a
                                                                              justified expectation that he will also commit future
                                                                              criminal offences and where the spouse of the EU national
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Amtsgericht                         and his children cannot reasonably be expected to live in
Frankenthal (Pfalz), by order of that court of 11 October                     his State of origin?
    2001, in criminal proceedings against Felix Kapper
                                                                         2.   Does Article 9(1) of Council Directive 64/221/EEC(1) of
                                                                              25 February 1964 preclude national legislation which no
                          (Case C-476/01)                                     longer provides for objection proceedings in which an
                                                                              examination of expediency is also carried out in relation
                                                                              to a decision of an administrative authority to expel the
                           (2002/C 56/09)                                     holder of a residence permit from the national territory, if
                                                                              a special body which is independent of the administrative
                                                                              authority adopting the decision has not been established?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   (1) OJ L 56, p. 850.
European Communities by order of the Amtsgericht (District
Court) Frankenthal (Pfalz) of 11 October 2001, received at the
Court Registry on 7 December 2001, for a preliminary ruling
in the criminal proceedings against Felix Kapper, on the
following question:
                                                                         Action brought on 17 December 2001 by the Commission
Does Article 1(2) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC (1) of                 of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
29 July 1991 on driving licences preclude a Member State                                             Sweden
from refusing to recognise a driving licence where, according
to its investigations, another Member State issued that licence                                  (Case C-490/01)
although the holder of the licence did not have his normal
residence there, and in appropriate cases is actual effect to be                                  (2002/C 56/11)
given to that provision in that regard?
                                                                         An action against the Kingdom of Sweden was brought
(1) OJ L 237, 1991, p. 1.                                                before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                         17 December 2001 by the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities, represented by M. Wolfcarius and C. Tufvesson,
                                                                         acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.


title: Case C-445/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven lodged on 16 November 2009 — 1. IMC Securities BV, 2. Stichting Autoriteit Financiële Markten

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/29

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven lodged on 16 November 2009 — 1. IMC Securities BV, 2. Stichting Autoriteit Financiële Markten
   (Case C-445/09)
   2010/C 24/53
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: 1. IMC Securities BV 2. Stichting Autoriteit Financiële Markten

      Question referred

   Must the second indent of Article 1(2)(a) of the Market Abuse Directive (1) be interpreted as meaning that the bringing about of price changes in a time span such as that at issue through the commission of a combination of acts with a financial instrument, namely transactions and orders to trade as described …, should be regarded as the ‘securing’ of such an instrument at an abnormal or artificial level?

      (1)  Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on insider dealing and market manipulation (market abuse) (OJ 2003 L 96, p. 16)


title: Case T-123/99: Action brought on 21 May 1999 by JT's Corporation Limited against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
7.8.1999               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 226/39
Action brought on 21 May 1999 by JT’s Corporation                        The contested decision refuses disclosure of documents falling
Limited against the Commission of the European Com-                      within the first and pan of the fourth categories on the ground
                            munities                                     that they were covered by the exception regarding the
                                                                         protection of the public interest, as defined in the annex to
                                                                         Decision 94/90. As regards the findings and information
                        (Case T-123/99)                                  obtained through the enquiries carried out in Bangladesh, on
                                                                         the basis of Regulation No 1468/81 (1), the contested decision
                        (1999/C 226/69)                                  invokes grounds of confidentiality. Finally, in relation to the
                                                                         second and part of the fourth categories of the requested
                                                                         material, the contested decision stases that Decision 94/9C
                                                                         requires application to be made to the Government of
                   (Language of the case: English)                       Bangladesh on the basis that it was the author of the documents
                                                                         in question.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               The applicant submits that:
European Communities on 21 May 1999 by JT’s Corporation
Limited, represented by Malachy Cornwell-Kelly, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at Wilson Associates, 3                — none of the arguments advanced by the Commission can
boulevard Royal.                                                              be considered as justified in the light of the Decision 94/90
                                                                              and Regulation No 1468/81, and
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         — the contested decision does not state with sufficient
                                                                              particularity the reasons upon which it is based, as required
— annul the Commission Decision of 11 March 1999;                             by Article 190 of the EC Treaty.
— order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                         (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1468/81, of 19 May 1981,         on
                                                                             mutual assistance between the administrative authorities of the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              Member States and cooperation between the latter and        the
                                                                             Commission to ensure the correct application of the law      on
                                                                             customs oragricultural matters. OJ L 144 of 2.6.1981, p. 1.
The applicant in the present case challenges the refusal of the
Commission to grant it access to certain documents concerning
demands for duty relating to imports of goods for which total
relief from duty was claimed and accorded upon presentation
of GSP Forms A certifying that the goods imported originated
in Bangladesh. It stated for this purpose that the VAT and
Duties Tribunal, before which an appeal had been brought
against the decision of the national authorities refusing
remission of the duty claimed pursuant to Article 239 of the
Community Customs Code, has no jurisdiction to compel the
                                                                         Action brought on 25 May 1999 by Autosalone Ispra dei
production of any documents by the Commission. The
                                                                         F.lli Rossi s.n.c against the Commission of the European
documents of which disclosure has been demanded are
                                                                                Communities
intended to be used as an evidence before that tribunal.
                                                                                (Case T-124/99)
The documents in question can be divided into the following
categories:
                                                                                (1999/C 226/70)
— EU mission reports and annexes;
— responses of the Government of Bangladesh or its agencies                                  (Language of the case: Italian)
     to the report;
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
— Commission decisions with respect to the mission reports;              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 25 May 1999 by Autosalone Ispra
— Correspondence between the Commission and the Govern-                  dei F.lli Rossi s.n.c., represented by Francandrea Venuti of the
     ment of Bangladesk with regard to cancellation of the GSP           Busto Arsizio Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
     Forms A; and                                                        the Chambers of Arsene Kronshagen, 22, Rue Marie-Adelaïde:
— reports or summaries compiled or received by the Com-                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
     mission with regard to the operation and conduct of the
     GSP scheme relating to textile goods from Bangladesh
     between 1991 and 1996.                                              — establish and declare that the EAEC is liable;


title: Case C-314/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal De Première Instance, Liège (Belgium) lodged on 30 June 2010 — Hubert Pagnoul v Belgian State — SPF Finances

text:
               11.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/24

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal De Première Instance, Liège (Belgium) lodged on 30 June 2010 — Hubert Pagnoul v Belgian State — SPF Finances
   (Case C-314/10)
   ()
   2010/C 246/42
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal De Première Instance, Liège

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Hubert Pagnoul

      Defendant: Belgian State — SPF Finances

      Question referred

   Does Article 6 of Title I, ‘Common Provisions’, of the Treaty of Lisbon of 13 December 2007 amending the Treaty on European Union, signed at Maastricht on 7 February 1992, in force since 1 December 2009 (substantially reproducing the provisions previously contained in Article 6 of Title I of the Treaty on European Union signed at Maastricht on 7 February 1992, which itself entered into force on 1 November 1993) and Article 234 (formerly 177) of the Treaty establishing the European Community (EC Treaty) of 25 March 1957, on the one hand, and/or Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 7 December 2000, on the other hand, preclude a national Law, such as that of 12 July 2009 amending Article 26 of the Special Law of 6 January 1989 on the Cour d’Arbitrage, (1) from requiring prior recourse to the Cour Constitutionnelle by a national court which finds that a taxpaying citizen is deprived of the effective judicial protection guaranteed by Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as incorporated in Community law, by another national Law, namely Article 49 of the Programmatic Law of 9 July 2004, without that court being able immediately to ensure the direct applicability of Community law to the dispute before it or being able to scrutinise compliance with that convention when the Cour Constitutionnelle has recognised the compatibility of the national law with the fundamental rights guaranteed by Title II of the Constitution?

      (1)  Moniteur belge, 31 July 2009, p. 51617.


title: Case T-363/03: Order of the Court of First Instance of 25 September 2008 — Regione Siciliana v Commission (Action for annulment — ERDF — Cancellation of a financial contribution — Recovery of the sums already paid — Regional or local entity — Lack of direct effect — Inadmissibility)

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/23

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 25 September 2008 — Regione Siciliana v Commission
   (Case T-363/03) (1)

   (Action for annulment - ERDF - Cancellation of a financial contribution - Recovery of the sums already paid - Regional or local entity - Lack of direct effect - Inadmissibility)
   (2008/C 327/43)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Regione Siciliana (Italy) (represented by: A. Cingolo, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. de March and L. Flynn, acting as Agents, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)
   Re:
   First, application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2003) 2890 final of 13 August 2003 concerning cancellation of the contribution from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) granted to the applicant by Commission Decision C(90) 2363 025 of 14 December 1990 in respect of an infrastructure project in Sicily and the recovery of the sums already paid by the Commission in connection with that contribution; secondly, application for annulment of Commission debit note No 3240504102 of 26 September 2003; and, thirdly, annulment of any other connected or prior measure
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Regione Siciliana is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 304, 13.12.2003.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of  19 January 2006  in Case C-240/03 P: Comunità montana della Valnerina v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — EAGGF — Withdrawal of financial aid — Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 — Principle of proportionality — Statement of reasons — Rights of the defence — Cross-appeal — Designation of two persons to be responsible for the execution of a project — Claim on only one of them for repayment of all the aid — Discretionary power of the Commission — Objective limits of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance)

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/2

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 19 January 2006
   in Case C-240/03 P: Comunità montana della Valnerina v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Appeal - EAGGF - Withdrawal of financial aid - Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 - Principle of proportionality - Statement of reasons - Rights of the defence - Cross-appeal - Designation of two persons to be responsible for the execution of a project - Claim on only one of them for repayment of all the aid - Discretionary power of the Commission - Objective limits of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance)
   (2006/C 60/03)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case C-240/03 P: APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice brought on 28 May 2003, by Comunità montana della Valnerina, (Avvocati: P. De Caterini, E. Cappelli and A. Bandini), the other parties to the proceedings being: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: C. Cattabriga and L. Visaggio, assisted by Avvocato A. Dal Ferro), and Italian Republic (Agent: I.M. Braguglia, assisted by Avvocato G. Aiello), the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, J. Malenovský, S. von Bahr, A. Borg Barthet and A. Ó Caoimh (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 19 January 2006, in which it ruled:

               1.

               The appeal and cross-appeal are dismissed;

               2.

               The Comunità Montana della Valnerina shall pay the costs of the appeal;

               3.

               The Commission of the European Communities shall pay the costs of the cross-appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 200 of 23.08.2003.


Important legal notice

|

E2001P0007

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Gulating lagmannsrett by decision of that court of 27 September 2001 in the case of Hegelstad Eiendomsselskap A. B. Hegelstad and Others v Hydro Texaco AS (Case E-7/01)

Official Journal C 081 , 04/04/2002 P. 0019 - 0019

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Gulating lagmannsrett by decision of that court of 27 September 2001 in the case of Hegelstad Eiendomsselskap A. B. Hegelstad and Others v Hydro Texaco AS(Case E-7/01)(2002/C 81/08)A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 27 September 2001 of Gulating lagmannsrett (Gulating Court of Appeal), Norway, which was received at the Court Registry on 3 October 2001, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Hegelstad Eiendomsselskap A. B. Hegelstad and Others v Hydro Texaco AS, on the following questions:1. Does a contract of cooperation between an independent petrol station operator who owns the station and a supplier of motor fuels and lubricants which contains clauses providing- for an exclusive right for the supplier to deliver motor fuels and lubricants to the distributor for the duration of the contract,- for a right for the supplier to assume ownership of the petrol station for a price of NOK 4 million, as registered in the "cadasre", or alternatively, a lease option at a set rental price corresponding to the contract period, in the event of debt settlement proceedings or bankruptcy on the part of the distributor,- that, for the owner of the station/distributor the contract period is not capable of termination and the terms of the contract may not be changed for a period of 15 years, and that the supplier is able to terminate the contract three months prior to the initial period,come within the block exemption in Article 53(3), see regulation of 4 December 1992, No 964, chapter II, section 10?2. If the block exemption in Article 53(3) does not apply, is the cooperation agreement incompatible with Article 53(1)?3. What are the legal effects of a possible conflict, and what limitation on time period must be applied, if any?


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 2002 in Case T-135/00: Carmelo Morello v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Procedure for filling vacant posts — Statement of reasons — Comparative examination of applicants and equal treatment of officials — Actions for annulment — Actions for damages)

text:
22.2.2003                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 44/23
1.     Annuls the decision of 1 March 2000 of the European                  3.     Ordered the Commission to pay the costs.
       Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products, rejecting an
       application for variation of certain terms of the marketing
       authorisation for the medicinal product ‘Daquiran’;                  (1 ) OJ C 211 of 22.7.2000.
2.     Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the
       costs incurred by the applicant and the EFPIA, intervener;
3.     Orders the Council to bear its own costs.
( 1) OJ C 192 of 8.7.2000.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 12 December 2002
                                                                            in Case T-136/00: Carmelo Morello v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities ( 1)
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                            (Officials — Procedure for filling vacant posts — Statement
                                                                            of reasons — Comparative examination of applicants and
                       of 12 December 2002                                  equal treatment of officials — Actions for annulment —
                                                                                Actions for damages)
in Case T-135/00: Carmelo Morello v Commission of the
                     European Communities ( 1)                                                        (2003/C 44/42)
(Officials — Procedure for filling vacant posts — Statement                                     (Language of the case: French)
of reasons — Comparative examination of applicants and
equal treatment of officials — Actions for annulment —
                        Actions for damages)
                                                                            In Case T-136/00: Carmelo Morello, an official of the Com-
                            (2003/C 44/41)                                  mission of the European Communities, residing in Brussels,
                                                                            represented by J. Sambon and P.-P. Van Gehuchten, Lawyers,
                                                                            with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Com-
                     (Language of the case: French)                         mission of the European Communities (Agents: C. Berardis-
                                                                            Kayser and D. Waelbroeck) — application for annulment of
                                                                            the Commission’s decision not to appoint the applicant to the
                                                                            post of Head of Unit 2 ‘Motor vehicles and other means of
In Case T-135/00: Carmelo Morello, an official of the Com-                  transport’ within Directorate F ‘Consumer goods and capital
mission of the European Communities, residing in Brussels,                  goods industries’ within the Directorate-General for Compe-
represented by J. Sambon and P.-P. Van Gehuchten, Lawyers,                  tition (COM/070/99) and of its decision to appoint a different
with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Com-                     applicant to the post and an application for damages — the
mission of the European Communities (Agents: C. Berardis-                   Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of M. Jaeg-
Kayser and D. Waelbroeck) — application for annulment of                    er, President, and K. Lenaerts and J. Azzizi, Judges; J. Palacio
the Commission’s decision not to appoint the applicant to                   González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a
the post of Head of Unit 1 ‘Post and telecommunications,                    judgment on 12 December 2002, in which it:
information society coordination’ within Directorate C ‘Infor-
mation, communication and multimedia’ within the Director-                  1.     Ordered the Commission to pay the applicant EUR 5 000;
ate-General for Competition (COM/069/99) and of its decision
to appoint a different applicant to the post and an application
for damages — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),                  2.     Dismissed the remainder of the action;
composed of M. Jaeger, President, and K. Lenaerts and J. Azzizi,
Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the               3.     Ordered the Commission to pay the costs.
Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 December 2002, in which it:
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 211 of 22.7.2000.
1.     Ordered the Commission to pay the applicant EUR 5 000;
2.     Dismissed the remainder of the action;


title: Case C-494/07: Order of the President of the Court of 22 October 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/30

         Order of the President of the Court of 22 October 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-494/07) (1)

   (2009/C 69/59)

      Language of the case: Greek

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

      (1)  OJ C 8, 12.1.2008.


title: Case C-491/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Celle (Germany) lodged on 15 October 2010 — Joseba Andoni Aguirre Zarraga v Simone Pelz

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/34

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Celle (Germany) lodged on 15 October 2010 — Joseba Andoni Aguirre Zarraga v Simone Pelz
   (Case C-491/10)
   ()
   2010/C 346/57
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Celle

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Joseba Andoni Aguirre Zarraga

      Defendant: Simone Pelz

      Questions referred

               1.

               Where the judgment to be enforced issued in the Member State of origin contains a serious infringement of fundamental rights, does the court of the Member State of enforcement exceptionally itself enjoy a power to examine the matter, pursuant to an interpretation of Article 42 of the Brussels IIa Regulation (1) in conformity with the Charter on Fundamental Rights?

               2.

               Is the court of the Member State of enforcement obliged to enforce notwithstanding the fact that, according to the case-file, the certificate issued by the court of the Member State of origin under Article 42 of the Brussels IIa Regulation is clearly inaccurate?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000; OJ L 338, 23.12.2003, p. 1


title: Case T-709/15: Action brought on 3 December 2015 — Almashreq Investment Fund v Council

text:
               15.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 59/32

         Action brought on 3 December 2015 — Almashreq Investment Fund v Council
   (Case T-709/15)
   (2016/C 059/35)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Almashreq Investment Fund (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;

               —

               as a consequence, order the European Union to repair all of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant at an amount to be fixed equitably by the Court;

               —

               order an expert to be appointed in order to establish the total extent of the harm suffered by the applicant;

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging the fact that it has suffered non-material damage, consisting of harm to its reputation, as a direct causal link to the measures taken by the Council of the European Union, for which the Council is liable.


title: Case T-512/17: Action brought on 7 August 2017 — OCU and Others v SRB

text:
               9.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 338/17

         Action brought on 7 August 2017 — OCU and Others v SRB
   (Case T-512/17)
   (2017/C 338/18)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Organización de Consumidores y Usuarios (OCU) (Madrid, Spain) and 37 other applicants

      Defendant: Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               declare that Articles 18 and 29 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 are unlawful and inapplicable;

               —

               order the defendant, the Single Resolution Board, to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present action is brought against Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017 concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme regarding the Banco Popular Español, S.A.
   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those raised in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán y Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sánchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.


title: Case C-37/09: Action brought on 28 January 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

text:
               4.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/17

         Action brought on 28 January 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-37/09)
   (2009/C 82/31)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J.-B. Laignelot, S. Pardo Quintillán and P. Guerra e Andrade, Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               A declaration, first, that by not having adopted the measures necessary to ensure that waste tipped in the dos Limas, dos Linos and dos Barreiras quarries in the district of Lourosa is disposed of or recovered without endangering human health or harming the environment, in particular without creating risks to water or soil, and to ensure that the waste is entrusted to a private or public collection service or to an undertaking responsible for its disposal or recovery and, secondly, by not having adopted the measures necessary to restrict the introduction into groundwater of substances included in List II of Directive 80/68/EEC so as to prevent the pollution of groundwater by those substances, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4 and 8 of Directive 2006/12/EC on waste, codifying Directive 75/442/EEC on waste, and under Articles 3 and 5 of Directive 80/68/EEC on the protection of groundwater against pollution caused by certain dangerous substances;

               —

               an order that the Portuguese Republic should pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Starting in the 1980s, waste from various sources began to be tipped in disused quarries without any supervision by the authorities whatsoever. Discharging of waste into the quarries continued until February 2004. Only in June 2004 were those areas closed off.
   Analysis of the water at separate points in the old quarry area disclosed troubling levels of chemical contamination. The water table in that area is contaminated.
   For many years the Portuguese authorities did not take the measures necessary to prevent holders of unidentified waste from discharging and abandoning waste in disused quarries. They did not check the discharge or abandonment of waste in the quarries or monitor its disposal.
   Furthermore, the Portuguese authorities did not take the measures necessary to prevent the introduction into groundwater of harmful toxic substances. They did not make subject to prior investigation the tipping of waste capable of leading to the indirect discharge of noxious substances into groundwater. Nor did they check the surface discharge of waste.


title: Case C-69/14: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu — Romania) — Dragoș Constantin Târșia v Statul roman and Serviciul public comunitar regim permise de conducere și înmatriculare a autovehiculelor (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Principles of equivalence and effectiveness — Res judicata — Recovery of undue payments — Recovery of taxes levied by a Member State in breach of EU law — Final decision of a court or tribunal imposing payment of a tax which is incompatible with EU law — Application for revision of such a decision — National legislation allowing the revision, in the light of later preliminary rulings given by the Court, of final decisions of a court or tribunal made exclusively in administrative proceedings)

text:
               23.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 389/6

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu — Romania) — Dragoș Constantin Târșia v Statul roman and Serviciul public comunitar regim permise de conducere și înmatriculare a autovehiculelor
   (Case C-69/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Principles of equivalence and effectiveness - Res judicata - Recovery of undue payments - Recovery of taxes levied by a Member State in breach of EU law - Final decision of a court or tribunal imposing payment of a tax which is incompatible with EU law - Application for revision of such a decision - National legislation allowing the revision, in the light of later preliminary rulings given by the Court, of final decisions of a court or tribunal made exclusively in administrative proceedings))
   (2015/C 389/06)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Tribunalul Sibiu

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Dragoș Constantin Târșia

      Defendants: Statul roman and Serviciul public comunitar regim permise de conducere și înmatriculare a autovehiculelor

      Operative part of the judgment

   EU law, in particular the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, must be interpreted as not precluding, in circumstances such as those in the dispute in the main proceedings, a situation where there is no possibility for a national court to revise a final decision of a court or tribunal made in the course of civil proceedings when that decision is found to be incompatible with an interpretation of EU law upheld by the Court of Justice of the European Union after the date on which that decision became final, even though such a possibility does exist as regards final decisions of a court or tribunal incompatible with EU law made in the course of administrative proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.


title: Case C-284/07: Action brought on 12 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

text:
               4.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/24

         Action brought on 12 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-284/07)
   (2007/C 183/43)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Caeiros and D. Kukovec, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               principally, declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Commission Directive 2005/51/EC (1) of 7 September 2005 amending Annex XX to Directive 2004/17/EC and Annex VIII to Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and the Council on public procurement, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first paragraph of Article 3 of Directive 2005/51/EC;

               —

               or, declare that, by failing in any event to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that same provision;

               —

               order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period within which the directive had to be transposed expired on 31 January 2006.

      (1)  OJ 2005 L 257, p. 127.


title: Case C-421/08 P: Order of the Court of 23 September 2009 — Calebus, SA v Commission of the European Communities, Kingdom of Spain (Appeal — Protection of habitats — List of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region — Commission Decision — Action for annulment brought by natural or legal persons — Admissibility — Appeal clearly unfounded)

text:
               16.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 11/9

         Order of the Court of 23 September 2009 — Calebus, SA v Commission of the European Communities, Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-421/08 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Protection of habitats - List of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region - Commission Decision - Action for annulment brought by natural or legal persons - Admissibility - Appeal clearly unfounded)
   2010/C 11/15
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Calebus, SA (represented by: R. Bocanegra Sierra, abogado)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Recchia and A. Alcover San Pedro, agents), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: F. Díez Moreno, agent)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the order of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 14 July 2008 in Case T-366/06 Calebus v Commission, in which the Court of First Instance dismissed as inadmissible the application for partial annulment of Article 1 of Annex 1 of Commission Decision 2006/613/EC of 19 July 2006 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, the list of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region (OJ 2006 L 259, p. 1), in so far as it declares the site designated as ‘Ramblas de Gergal, Tabernas y Sur de Sierra Alhamilla’, which includes land belonging to the applicant, to be a site of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Calebus SA is ordered to bear its own costs.

               3.

               The Kingdom of Spain is ordered to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 55 of 07.03.2009


title: Case T-484/17: Action brought on 3 August 2017 — Fidesban and Others v SRB

text:
               2.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/14

         Action brought on 3 August 2017 — Fidesban and Others v SRB
   (Case T-484/17)
   (2017/C 330/18)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Fidesban, SA (Madrid, Spain) and 69 other applicants (represented by: R. Pelayo Jiménez, lawyer)

      Defendant: Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017 (SRB/EES/2017/08);

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those alleged in Case T-478/17, Mutualidad General de la Abogacía and Others v Single Resolution Board.


title: Case C-274/10: Action brought on 1 June 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Hungary

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/26

         Action brought on 1 June 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Hungary
   (Case C-274/10)
   ()
   2010/C 221/42
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and B.D. Simon, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Hungary

      Form of order sought

               —

               a declaration that the Republic of Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) by requiring taxable persons whose tax declaration for a given tax period records an ‘excess’ within the meaning of Article 183 of that directive to carry forward that excess or a part of it to the following tax year where the taxable person has not paid the supplier the full amount for the purchase in question, and by creating a situation, as a result of that requirement, where certain taxable persons whose tax declarations regularly record such an ‘excess’ may be required more than once to carry forward the excess to the following tax year.

               —

               order Republic of Hungary to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The subject of this application is the provision of Hungarian tax law under which, at the end of the tax year, taxable persons may apply for the refund of excess value added tax (‘VAT’) only in so far as that excess exceeds the amount of the VAT payable on transactions which have not yet actually been paid for. Thus, the consequence of the contested Hungarian legislation is that a taxable person may not apply for a refund of the part of the excess corresponding to the VAT chargeable on purchases which have not been paid for but must carry it forward to the following tax year. If, at the end of the tax year, the amount of the excess VAT declared is less than or equal to the amount of the VAT chargeable on purchases not paid for, the taxable person must carry forward the whole of the excess VAT to the following tax year. The same procedure must be followed at the end of the following tax year: the legislation places no temporal limit on the procedure with the result that it is possible for a taxable person to be required to carry forward excess VAT indefinitely.
   The Commission does not dispute that Article 183 of Directive 2006/112 (‘the directive’) grants the Member States a discretion as to whether to carry forward or refund excess VAT. However the Member States may only exercise that discretion in accordance with the principles of the common system of VAT as a whole and in particular the principle of tax neutrality. As a provision which impedes the full application of the principle of tax neutrality, Article 183 of the directive, which allows Member States to carry forward a VAT excess to the following year once, must be interpreted narrowly and may not serve as a basis for the adoption of national provisions contrary to the principle of tax neutrality or the purpose of the deduction mechanism.
   In accordance with the principle of neutrality, the purpose of the deduction mechanism is to free a trader entirely from the burden of VAT which he has to pay or has paid in the course of any of his business transactions. That principle precludes the Member States from imposing requirements for the refund of excess VAT which entail a burden on the taxable person and affect that person’s financial position or liquidity or commercial decisions. The withholding of the VAT excess allowed by the contested Hungarian provision has such negative effects on the taxable person for two reasons.
   First, because a surplus of deductible VAT over VAT to be paid must be regarded as an amount due to the taxable person and the postponement of payment of that amount reduces the profitability or liquidity of the taxable person and increases his commercial risk. The taxable person must pay the VAT due on the goods or services supplied by him even if they have not been paid for, while he may only obtain a refund of the VAT he paid on the goods and services supplied to him if he actually paid for them.
   Second, the withholding of the VAT excess constitutes a burden not only for the taxable person in the position of seeking a refund but also on the taxable person who is the other party to the taxable transaction, that is to say, the seller. The decrease in the buyer’s liquidity leads to an increasing risk that the seller will not receive the consideration for the goods or services supplied or will receive it late, while, regardless of whether he does or not, the seller is required to hand over the VAT on his supply of goods or services.
   In the view of the Commission, the fact that the legislation places a burden on taxable persons cannot be offset by the imposition of further burdens on taxable persons. The balance which the legislation seeks to attain can only be achieved if, to offset the burden falling on the taxable person in the position of debtor, that is to say, to offset the obligation to pay the tax, it provides for the possibility for the taxable person in the position of creditor to obtain a refund of the VAT paid when he was in the position of debtor.
   Finally, given that Article 183 of the directive only provides for the excess VAT to be carried forward once ‘to the following tax year’ the contested Hungarian legislation breaches that article in that it does not provide for the taxable person to obtain a refund of the excess at the latest by the end of the second tax year. Moreover, the Hungarian legislation which, essentially, by reducing the buyer’s liquidity, is in its turn reducing the likelihood of the refund being made and does not guarantee that the taxable person will ever recover the excess. If the taxable person ceases activity without paying for all purchases made because he is insolvent, there is no means of recovering the VAT chargeable on transactions which were not paid for as the State will ultimately retain it.
   Having regard to the foregoing arguments, the Commission takes the view that the Hungarian legislature has exceeded the discretion granted to it and has infringed Article 183 of the directive by adopting legislation on the requirements to be met for the refund of excess VAT which infringes the principle of tax neutrality and allows the excess to be carried forward year after year.

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


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 September 2004 in Case C-1/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Bruxelles): criminal proceedings against Paul Van de Walle and Others and Texaco Belgium SA (Environment — Waste — Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/156/EEC — Meaning of ‘waste’, ‘producer of waste’ and ‘holder of waste’ — Soil infiltrated by leaked hydrocarbons — Independent operation of a service station belonging to a petroleum company)

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/8

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 7 September 2004
   in Case C-1/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Bruxelles): criminal proceedings against Paul Van de Walle and Others and Texaco Belgium SA (1)

   (Environment - Waste - Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/156/EEC - Meaning of ‘waste’, ‘producer of waste’ and ‘holder of waste’ - Soil infiltrated by leaked hydrocarbons - Independent operation of a service station belonging to a petroleum company)
   (2004/C 262/16)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-1/03: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC from the Cour d'appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings pending before that court against Paul Van de Walle, Daniel Laurent, Thierry Mersch and Texaco Belgium SA, intervener: Région de Bruxelles-Capitale — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen, F. Macken and N. Colneric, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 September 2004, in which it has ruled:
   Hydrocarbons which are unintentionally spilled and cause soil and groundwater contamination are waste within the meaning of Article 1(a) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991. The same is true for soil contaminated by hydrocarbons, even if it has not been excavated. In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, the petroleum undertaking which supplied the service station can be considered to be the holder of that waste within the meaning of Article 1(c) of Directive 75/442 only if the leak from the service station's storage facilities which gave rise to the waste can be attributed to the conduct of that undertaking.

      (1)  OJ C 44 of 22.2.2003.


title: Case C-134/10: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 March 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2002/22/EC — Article 31 — Criteria for awarding ‘must-carry’ status — General interest objectives permitting the award of that status — Impact of the number of end-users of communications networks on the award of that status — Principle of proportionality)

text:
               30.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 130/7

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 March 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-134/10) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2002/22/EC - Article 31 - Criteria for awarding ‘must-carry’ status - General interest objectives permitting the award of that status - Impact of the number of end-users of communications networks on the award of that status - Principle of proportionality)
   2011/C 130/12
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Nijenhuis and C. Vrignon, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: M. Jacobs and T. Materne, Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Incorrect transposition of Article 31 of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51) - Criteria for the award of the ‘must-carry’ status concerning radio and television - General interest objectives for the award of such status - Impact of the number of the network’s end-users on the award of such status - Principle of proportionality

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing correctly to transpose Article 31 of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (‘Universal Service Directive’), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the provisions of that Directive and Article 56 TFEU.

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.


title: Case T-105/10: Order of the General Court of 29 November 2010 — BASF v Commission

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/57

         Order of the General Court of 29 November 2010 — BASF v Commission
   (Case T-105/10) (1)

   ()
   2011/C 30/104
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.


title: Case C-435/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) lodged on 13 September 2010 — J.C. van Ardennen v Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen

text:
               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) lodged on 13 September 2010 — J.C. van Ardennen v Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen
   (Case C-435/10)
   ()
   2010/C 317/32
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Centrale Raad van Beroep

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: J.C. van Ardennen

      Defendant: Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen (UWV)

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the Insolvency Directive, (1) in particular Articles 4, 5 and 10 thereof, be interpreted in such a way as to render generally incompatible with it a national rule which obliges employees, in the event of the insolvency of their employer, in order to (fully) validate their right to have their outstanding wage claims met, to register as job-seekers at the latest on the first working day after the day on which the employment relationship ended or should reasonably have ended? If not:

               2.

               Must the Insolvency Directive, in particular Articles 4, 5 and 10 thereof, be interpreted in such a way as to render incompatible with it a national rule which also imposes that registration obligation on employees who engaged in activities in their own business or profession during the notice period?

               3.

               Must the Insolvency Directive, in particular Articles 4, 5 and 10 thereof, be interpreted in such a way as to render incompatible with it a national rule on the basis of which failure to comply (timeously) with that registration obligation can result in the partial non-payment of the insolvency benefit, where the level and the duration of the partial non-payment measure taken are partly determined by the date of compliance with that obligation?

      (1)  Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (OJ 1980 L 283, p. 23)


title: Case C-37/11: Action brought on 25 January 2011 — European Commission v Czech Republic

text:
               12.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/16

         Action brought on 25 January 2011 — European Commission v Czech Republic
   (Case C-37/11)
   2011/C 80/31
   Language of the case: Czech

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: Z. Malůšková and H. Tserepa-Lacombe, acting as Agents,)

      Defendant: Czech Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by providing in Paragraph 1(2)(q) of Decree No 77/2003 Coll. that ‘spreadable butter’ (pomazánkové máslo) shall mean a milk product from soured cream, enriched by powdered milk or buttermilk, containing, by weight, not less than 31 % milk fat and 42 % dry material, and by allowing such a product to be marketed under the commercial designation ‘spreadable butter’, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 115 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 (1) in conjunction with point I, clause 2, first and second subclauses of Annex XV to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and Part A, points 1 and 4 of the Appendix to Annex XV to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007;

               —

               order Czech Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Article 115 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, in conjunction with point I, clause 2, first and second subclauses of Annex XV and Part A, point 1 of the Appendix to Annex XV to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, provides that the commercial designation ‘butter’ is reserved for products with a milk fat content of at least 80 % and a water content not exceeding 16 %. In the Czech Republic, by Paragraph 1(2)(q) of Ministry of Agriculture Decree No 77/2003 Coll. of 6 March 2003, a product is introduced to the market under the commercial designation ‘spreadable butter’. That product is a solid, tractable emulsion of the water in oil type, obtained primarily from soured cream and containing, by weight, not less than 31 % milk fat and 42 % dry material. On account of its lower than prescribed content in milk fat, the product ‘spreadable butter’ does not fulfil the conditions for use of the commercial designation ‘butter’, and the above-mentioned EU legal provisions are thereby infringed.
   Point I, second subclause of Annex XV, in conjunction with Part A, point 4 of the Appendix to Annex XV to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 requires that, for milk products with a milk fat content of less than 39 %, the commercial designation ‘Dairy spread X %’ be used. ‘Spreadable butter’ is not marketed under that designation, and accordingly the above-mentioned EU legal provisions are infringed.
   By way of exception, products may be marketed under the commercial designation ‘butter’ even if they do not fulfil the above parameters, if the requirements laid down by point I, clause 2, third subclause (a) of Annex XV to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 are fulfilled. Such products are exhaustively listed in the list of products in Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 445/2007. (2)‘Spreadable butter’ has not been entered on that list, as it does not fulfil the conditions laid down by point I, clause 2, third subclause (a) of Annex XV to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007. ‘Spreadable butter’ cannot therefore use those exceptions.

      (1)  OJ 2007 L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1

      (2)  OJ 2007 L 106, 24.4.2007, p. 24


title: Case C-143/05: Action brought on 29 March 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/24

         Action brought on 29 March 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-143/05)
   (2005/C 143/34)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 March 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by K. Simonsson and W. Wils, of its Legal Service.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that by not taking all necessary legal and administrative measures to comply with Directive 2002/84/EC (1)of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 November 2002 amending the Directives on maritime safety and the prevention of pollution from ships, or by not notifying the Commission of such measures, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for implementing the directive in national law expired on 23 November 2003.

      (1)  OJ 2002 L 324, p. 53.


title: Case T-214/09: Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2011 — COR Sitzmöbel Helmut Lübke v OHIM — El Corte Inglés (COR) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for territorial extension of the protection of an international registration — Word mark COR — Earlier Community word mark CADENACOR — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Similarity of the signs — Similarity of the goods)

text:
               3.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2011 — COR Sitzmöbel Helmut Lübke v OHIM — El Corte Inglés (COR)
   (Case T-214/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for territorial extension of the protection of an international registration - Word mark COR - Earlier Community word mark CADENACOR - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Similarity of the signs - Similarity of the goods)
   2011/C 355/28
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: COR Sitzmöbel Helmut Lübke GmbH & Co. KG (Rheda-Wiedenbrück, Germany) (represented by: Y.-G. von Amsberg and A.-S. Loesenbeck, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo, M.E. López Camba and Seijo Veiguela, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 March 2009 (Case R 376/2008-2) concerning opposition proceedings between El Corte Inglés, SA, and COR Sitzmöbel Helmut Lübke GmbH & Co. KG.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders COR Sitzmöbel Helmut Lübke GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 180, 1.8.2009.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 26 October 2004 in Case T-55/03: Philippe Brendel v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Appointment — Classification in grade and step — Additional seniority — Action for damages)

text:
               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/34

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 26 October 2004
   in Case T-55/03: Philippe Brendel v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Officials - Appointment - Classification in grade and step - Additional seniority - Action for damages)
   (2005/C 6/67)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-55/03: Philippe Brendel, official of the Commission of the European Communities, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers, against the Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall, F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, assisted by Me D. Waelbroeck, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application, first, for annulment of the Commission's decision classifying the applicant in Grade A 7, step 2, and, second, for damages to compensate the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: J. Pirrung, President, A.W.H. Meij and N. Forwood, Judges; B. Pastor, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 26 October 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Orders the Commission to pay the default interest on the sum consisting of the difference between the remuneration payable to the applicant corresponding to Grade A 7, step 3, and the remuneration corresponding to Grade 7, step 2, from 16 April 2001; this interested is to be computed as from the various dates on which each payment, under the Staff Regulations, ought to have been made until payment has been made in full. The rate of interest to be applied is to be calculated on the basis of the rated fixed by the European Central Bank for principal refinancing operations, applicable during the various phases of the period concerned, increased by two points;

               2.

               Declare that there is no longer any need to rule on the claim for payment of the difference between the remuneration owed to the applicant, corresponding to Grade A 7, step 2, from 16 March 2001;

               3.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               4.

               Orders the Commission to pay its own costs and three quarters of the applicant's costs;

               5.

               Orders the applicant to pay a quarter of his own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 101 of 26.4.2003.


title: Case T-722/15: Action brought on 4 December 2015 — Interessengemeinschaft privater Milchverarbeiter Bayerns v Commission

text:
               15.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 59/38

         Action brought on 4 December 2015 — Interessengemeinschaft privater Milchverarbeiter Bayerns v Commission
   (Case T-722/15)
   (2016/C 059/45)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Interessengemeinschaft privater Milchverarbeiter Bayerns e. V. (Mertingen, Germany) (represented by: C. Bittner and N. Thies)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the contested decision to be invalid in so far as it:

                           —

                           states in Article 1 that the State aid which the Federal Republic of Germany granted unlawfully in breach of Article 108(3) TFEU in respect of the milk quality tests carried out by the Land Bavaria in favour of dairy sector undertakings in that Land is during the period starting 1 January 2007 incompatible with the internal market;

                           —

                           orders in Articles 2 to 4 the repayment of that State aid together with interest by the beneficiaries;

               —

               order the defendant to bear the costs incurred by the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present action, the applicant seeks the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2015) 6295 final of 18 September 2015 concerning State aid SA.35484 (2013/C) (ex SA.35484 (2012/NN)) granted by Germany in respect of milk quality tests pursuant to the Milk and Fat Law.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 108(3) TFEU in conjunction with Article 6(1) and the first sentence of Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (1)

               The applicant claims that the contested decision is based on facts and points of law which were not part of the opening decision.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU in so far as the surcharge was classified as a State resource
               According to the applicant, the surcharge should not be classified as a State resource, since it is not under permanent State control and is not available to the national authorities. The national authorities merely forwarded payments from Bavarian dairy companies to the milk testers designated to carry out milk quality tests.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU in so far as the financing of the milk quality tests was classified as State aid in favour of Bavarian dairy companies
               In this regard, it is claimed that the costs of milk quality tests are not expenses usually borne by Bavarian dairy companies. The tests were carried out in the public interest. In addition, the alleged benefits enjoyed by the dairy companies were offset by the requirement to pay a surcharge.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law (in the alternative), alleging an infringement of Article 107(3) TFEU
               The applicant claims that, during the period 2000-2006, the defendant considered the contested funding to be compatible with the internal market. Since then, there has been no change to the contested funding. Those circumstances indicate that the defendant’s discretion was reduced so that it is required to consider the contested funding granted since 1 January 2007 as compatible with the internal market.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law (in the alternative), alleging an infringement of Article 108(1) and (3) TFEU in so far as the financing of the milk quality tests was classified as new State aid which is thus subject to the obligation to notify

               6.

               Sixth plea in law (in the alternative), alleging an infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations
               Finally, the applicant claims that, for the period 2000-2006, the Commission found that the financing of milk quality tests was compatible with the internal market. In addition, still in February 2012, it classified the financing of milk quality tests as existing aid. As a result, it created the legitimate expectation that in any event there would be no order for repayment of the alleged State aid.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).


title: Case T-10/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  15 March 2006  — Leite Mateus v Commission (Officials — Appointment — Revision of the classification in grade — Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations)

text:
               6.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/18

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 March 2006 — Leite Mateus v Commission
   (Case T-10/04) (1)

   (Officials - Appointment - Revision of the classification in grade - Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations)
   (2006/C 108/30)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Carlos Alberto Leite Mateus (Zaventem, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and V. Joris, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of the Commission's decision of 20 December 2002, setting the applicant's final classification at Grade B3 with effect from 1 March 1988.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the Commission's decision of 20 December 2002, setting the applicant's final classification at Grade B3 with effect from 1 March 1988;

               2.

               Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 59, 6.3.2004.


title: Case T-151/17: Action brought on 8 March 2017 — Marriott Worldwide v EUIPO — Graf (Representation of a winged bull)

text:
               24.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/35

         Action brought on 8 March 2017 — Marriott Worldwide v EUIPO — Graf (Representation of a winged bull)
   (Case T-151/17)
   (2017/C 129/54)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Marriott Worldwide Corp. (Bethesda, Maryland, United States) (represented by: A. Reid, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Johann Graf (Gumpoldskirchen, Austria)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark (Representation of a winged bull) — EU trade mark No 10 511 723

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 January 2017 in Case R 165/2016-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 53(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 53(2)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-700/13: Action brought on 30 December 2013 — Bankia v Commission

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/45

         Action brought on 30 December 2013 — Bankia v Commission
   (Case T-700/13)
   2014/C 52/87
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Bankia, SA (Valencia, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero, A. Lamadrid de Pablo and A. Biondi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to that decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ (‘STLS’) as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as the beneficiaries of the alleged aid and as the sole addressees of the order for recovery;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid in breach of general principles of EU law;

               —

               annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of private contracts between the investors and other entities; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The decision contested in the present proceedings is the same as that contested in Case T-515/13 Spain v Commission (OJ 2013 C 336, p. 29).
   In support of its action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law

                           —

                           The applicant claims that the contested decision infringes Article 107 TFEU in categorising as State aid the STLS and the individual measures of which it is composed. The applicant submits that the Commission erred in assessing as a whole, and in imputing to the Kingdom of Spain, a number of independent autonomous public and private measures. In addition, the applicant denies that the measures in question are liable to confer a selective economic advantage on the alleged beneficiaries, as well as the possibility that they may distort competition between those beneficiaries and other entities, and their supposed effect on trade between Member States.

               2.

               Second plea in law

                           —

                           Secondly, the applicant submits that the Commission made a manifest error of law and infringed Articles 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU in categorising the application of the Spanish tonnage tax regime in certain cases as new aid rather than as existing aid. Given that, in 2002, the Commission approved the tonnage tax regime notified by Spain, if the Commission had wished to call in question the application of that regime, it ought, in any event, to have done so in accordance with the procedure applicable to existing aid. The applicant maintains that the arguments set out in the decision to make the case for the existence of new aid are manifestly unfounded.

               3.

               Third plea in law

                           —

                           Thirdly, the applicant alleges, in the alternative, infringement of Articles 107 TFEU and 296 TFEU, inasmuch as the Commission erred in regarding entities such as the applicant (investors in EIGs which carried out operations covered by the decision) as the ultimate and only beneficiaries of the measures at issue, and in any event failed to state adequate reasons for such a view.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law

                           —

                           Fourthly, the applicant alleges, also in the alternative, that the order for recovery under Article 4 of the contested decision is in breach of the general principle of legal certainty inasmuch as it places, unjustifiably, a temporal limit on the application of that principle.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law

                           —

                           Fifthly, the applicant sets out the reasons why, in its submission, in making a determination as to the validity of clauses in private contracts entered into under Spanish law between the investors and other private entities, the contested decision is also in breach of the principle of conferral of powers and of Articles 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU, Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 and Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.


title: Case T-259/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 September 2007 — Nikolaou v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Inquiry of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) concerning a Member of the Court of Auditors — Divulgence of information — Protection of personal information — Access to the inquiry file and to OLAF's report — Sufficiently serious breach of the rules of law conferring rights on individuals — Causal link — Loss)

text:
               20.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/23

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 September 2007 — Nikolaou v Commission
   (Case T-259/03) (1)

   (Non-contractual liability - Inquiry of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) concerning a Member of the Court of Auditors - Divulgence of information - Protection of personal information - Access to the inquiry file and to OLAF's report - Sufficiently serious breach of the rules of law conferring rights on individuals - Causal link - Loss)
   (2007/C 247/33)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Kalliopi Nikolaou (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos and V. Vlassi, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Condou-Durande and C. Ladenburger, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Action for damages, pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 288 EC, for the loss suffered by the applicant following publication of information concerning an inquiry carried out concerning her by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and OLAF's refusal to grant her access to the inquiry file and to supply her with a copy of its final report.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Orders the Commission to pay Ms Kalliopi Nikolaou compensation of EUR 3 000;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders Ms Nikolaou to bear three quarters of her own costs and three quarters of the costs incurred by the Commission, which is to bear a quarter of its own costs and pay a quarter of the costs incurred by Ms Nikolaou.

      (1)  OJ C 264, 1.11.2003.


title: Case T-141/17: Action brought on 6 March 2017 — Amisi Kumba v Council

text:
               24.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/31

         Action brought on 6 March 2017 — Amisi Kumba v Council
   (Case T-141/17)
   (2017/C 129/47)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Gabriel Amisi Kumba (Kasa-Vubu, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: O. Okito, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Regulation (EU) 2016/2230 implementing Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/2231 of 12 December 2016 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP, in so far as it concerns Mr Gabriel Amisi Kumba;

               —

               order the Council to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant and all interveners.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-139/17, Kibelisa v Council.


title: Case F-32/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 4 October 2007 — De la Cruz. v European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (Staff cases — Contract staff — Reform of the Staff Regulations of Officials — Former local staff — Fixing of classification and remuneration on recruitment — Equivalence of posts — Consultation of the Staff Committee)

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/68

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 4 October 2007 — De la Cruz. v European Agency for Safety and Health at Work
   (Case F-32/06) (1)

   (Staff cases - Contract staff - Reform of the Staff Regulations of Officials - Former local staff - Fixing of classification and remuneration on recruitment - Equivalence of posts - Consultation of the Staff Committee)
   (2007/C 269/122)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: María del Carmen de la Cruz (Galdakao, Spain) (represented by: G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (OHSA) (represented by: E. Ortega, C. Georges and J. G. Blanch, Agents, and S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)
   Re:
   First, annulment of the appointing authority's decisions refusing to re-classify the applicants, who are members of the contract staff classified in function group II, in function group III, and secondly, a claim for damages.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decisions of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (OSHA) classifying the applicants in function group II by virtue of their contracts as members of the contract staff, signed on 28 and 29 April 2005;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the heads of claim;

               3.

               Orders the OSHA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 131, 3.6.2006, p. 51.


               8.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/32

         Action brought on 10 January 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Kingdom of Norway
   (Case E-3/14)
   (2014/C 138/09)
   An action against the Kingdom of Norway was brought before the EFTA Court on 10 January 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Xavier Lewis and Markus Schneider, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Rue Belliard 35, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               Declare that by failing to adopt, and/or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority forthwith of, the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 65a of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2009/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009 on airport charges), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed, Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the Agreement.

               2.

               Order the Kingdom of Norway to bear the costs of these proceedings.

      Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               The application addresses Norway’s failure to comply, no later than 30 March 2013, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 30 January 2013 regarding that state’s failure to implement into its national legal order Directive 2009/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009 on airport charges (‘the Act’), as referred to at point 65a of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto.

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13 of the Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement, by failing to adopt, and/or to notify the Authority of, the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.