title: Case C-131/02: Action brought on 9 April 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

text:
C 131/12               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        1.6.2002
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                   The Commission claims that the Court should:
the Court should:
                                                                         1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
—     declare that, by failing to communicate to the Com-                      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      mission any information concerning the quality of bath-                  Commission Directive 2000/24/EC (1) of 28 April 2000
      ing waters in France for the 1999 bathing season, the                    amending the Annexes to Council Directives 76/895/
      French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under               EEC, 86/362/EEC, 86/363/EEC and 90/642/EEC on the
      Article 13 of Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 Decem-                   fixing of maximum levels for pesticide residues in and on
      ber 1975 concerning the quality of bathing water (1);                    cereals, foodstuffs of animal origin and certain products
                                                                               of plant origin, including fruit and vegetables respectively,
                                                                               the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations
—     order the French Republic to pay the costs.                              under the EC Treaty;
                                                                         2.    Order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
The Commission considers that the social conflict giving rise
to the omission which has been established cannot justify that           In view of the binding nature of the provisions of the third
omission. Although, according to a general principle common              paragraph of Article 249 EC and of the first paragraph of
to the laws of the Member States, force majeure is deemed to             Article 10 EC, the Member States to which a directive is
arise in the event of an occurrence possessing, simultaneously,          addressed are obliged to transpose it into national law in such
the characteristics of being beyond the control of the State,            a way that it becomes fully effective on expiry of the period
being unforeseeable and being irresistible in its effects, the           for transposition. The period prescribed in Article 5(2) of the
social conflict in issue here does not fulfil those criteria. The        directive expired on 31 December 2000 without the Republic
fact that checks continued to be carried out on the ground, in           of Austria having adopted the necessary provisions.
accordance with the requirements of the directive, cannot
absolve France of its obligations under Article 13 of the
directive, which has its own particular purpose. The Com-                (1) OJ L 107, 2000, p. 28.
mission further notes that, as at the expiry of the period stated
in the reasoned opinion, the French authorities had not sent
the Commission any information concerning the quality of
bathing waters in France for the 1999 bathing season, and that
it had still not done so as at the date of the present application.
                                                                         Action brought on 9 April 2002 by the Commission
(1) OJ L 31 of 5.2.1976, p. 1.                                           of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                                Belgium
                                                                                (Case C-132/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 131/23)
Action brought on 9 April 2002 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Republic of                      An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before
                               Austria                                   the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 April
                                                                         2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                         represented by M. Patakia, acting as Agent, with an address for
                         (Case C-131/02)                                 service in Luxembourg.
                         (2002/C 131/22)                                 The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                         the Court should:
                                                                         (1) declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before                   and administrative measures necessary in order to comply
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 April                    with Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,                            of the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate practice
represented by Gerald Braun, of the Legal Service of the                       of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a
Commission of the European Communities, with an address                        Member State other than that in which the qualification
for service in Luxembourg at the office of Luis Escobar                        was obtained (1), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to
Guerrero, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.                fulfil its obligations under that directive;


title: Action brought on 24 April 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium (Case C-135/96)

text:
22 . 6 . 96           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 180/23
Action brought on 24 April 1996 by the Commission of the            implemented system of declaration can perform that
   European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain                function perfectly well .
                       ( Case C-134/96 )
                                                                    (') OJ No L 178 , 8 . 7. 1988 , p . 5 .
                         ( 96/C 180/49 )
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                    Action brought on 24 April 1996 by the Commission of the
24 April 1996 by the Commission of the European                      European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium
Communities, represented by Antonio Caeiro and Miguel
Diaz-Llanos La Roche, Legal Advisers, with an address for                                     Case C-135/96 )
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la                                      (96/C 180/50 )
Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                    An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
                                                                    before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
The applicant claims that the Court should :                        24 April 1996 by the Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities , represented by Hendrik van Lier and
1 , declare that, by making subject to an administrative            Jean-Francis Pasquier, acting as Agents, with an address for
     authorization the physical exportation of money in             service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gômez de la
     cash, notes or bearer cheques in pesetas for foreign           Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
     currency in an amount exceeding Pta 5 million, the
     Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations          The Commission of the European Communities claims that
     under Council Directive 88/361 /EEC ( 1 ) and, as from         the Court should :
     1 January 1994 , Articles 73b and 73d of the EC
     Treaty;                                                        — declare that, by failing within the prescribed period to
                                                                        adopt the laws , regulations and administrative measures
                                                                        necessary in order to comply with Commission Directive
2 , order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs .                       91 /659/EEC adapting to technical progress Annex I to
                                                                        Council Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximation of
Fleas in law and main arguments                                         the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of
                                                                        the Member States relating to restrictions on the
                                                                        marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and
Since Directive 88/361 /EEC does not set any specific limits,
                                                                        preparations ( asbestos ) ('), the Kingdom of Belgium has
the free movement of capital must be interpreted in the
                                                                        failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty,
broadest sense possible and not otherwise . That
interpretation may be extracted from the wording of the             — order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .
introduction to the nomenclature in Annex I to the
Directive . That conclusion is corroborated by the wording          Pleas in law and main arguments
of the new Article 73b of the EC Treaty which prohibits all
restrictions on the movement of capital between Member              The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third
States and between Member States and third countries .              paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty is such as to
Article 73d 1 ( b ) nonetheless explains that Article 73b is to     oblige Member States to whom directives are addressed to
be without prejudice to the right of Member States to apply         adopt the measures necessary for the implementation of
the requisite measures to prevent infringement of national          such directives within the time limit prescribed therein. The
law and regulations, in particular in the field of taxation and     time limit in question expired, on 1 January 1993 but the
prudential supervision of financial institutions, or to lay         Kingdom of Belgium has not adopted the necessary
down procedures for the declaration of capital movements            measures .
for purposes of administrative or statistical information, or
to take measures which are justified on grounds of public           (') OJ No L 363 , 31 . 12 . 1991 , p . 36 .
policy or public security. The concept of 'requisite measure'
meets the requirement of proportionality which must
characterize any measure which involves an exception to a
freedom recognized by the Treaty .
                                                                    Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de
                                                                    Grande Instance, Paris, by judgment of that court of
The Spanish authorities allege tax fraud, terrorism and             23 February 1996 in the case of The Scotch Whisky
money laundering, which is often linked to drugs                    Association v. La Martiniquaise LM, now called
trafficking, that is to say, problems which affect all the          Compagnie Financière Européenne de Prises de
Member States and which constitute a real public order              Participation ( Cofepp ), Prisunic SA, Centrale d'Achats et de
threat in those States . Once it is acknowledged that the                        Services Alimentaires SARL ( Casai )
objective is lawful, in order to ascertain whether the
requirement of authorization is proportional , methods of                                    ( Case C- 1 3 6/96 )
supervision which allow the objective itself of preventing                                     ( 96/C 180/51 )
infringement of national law and regulations, but which
hinder to a lesser extent movements of capital should be            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
considered . The Commission is of the view that a properly          European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal de


title: Case T-103/06: Judgment of the General Court of 13 April 2010 — Esotrade v OHIM — Segura Sánchez (YoKaNa) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark YoKaNa — Earlier Community and national figurative marks YOKONO — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 April 2010 — Esotrade v OHIM — Segura Sánchez (YoKaNa)
   (Case T-103/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark YoKaNa - Earlier Community and national figurative marks YOKONO - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2010/C 148/45
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Esotrade SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. de Rivera Lamo de Espinosa and J.E. Astiz Suárez, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. García Murillo and O. Montalto, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Antonio Segura Sánchez (Alicante, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 January 2006 (Case R 217/2004-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Antonio Segura Sánchez and Esotrade SA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 121, 20.5.2006.


title: NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION

text:
C 303/32        EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                             2.10.98
                                                        III
                                                     (Notices)
               COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN
                                         COMMUNITIES
                                    NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION
                                                  (98/C 303/08)
         The Court of Justice of the European Communities are publishing in the Official Journal of the
         European Communities C 303ØA of 2 October 1998 the following open competition:
         Greek edition
         CJ/LA/30 (lawyer-linguists of Greek mother tongue)
         To obtain a copy of this Official Journal please apply to the Personnel Division of the Court of
         Justice of the European Communities, L-2925 Luxembourg.
         Closing date for application: 13 November 1998


title: Case C-109/09: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany)) — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v Gertraud Kumpan (Fixed-term employment contract — Directive 1999/70/EC — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Role of the national court)

text:
               7.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/2

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany)) — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v Gertraud Kumpan
   (Case C-109/09) (1)

   (Fixed-term employment contract - Directive 1999/70/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Role of the national court)
   2011/C 139/02
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesarbeitsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

      Defendant: Gertraud Kumpan

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesarbeitsgericht — Interpretation, first, of Articles 1, 2(1) and 6(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16) and, second, of Clause 5(1) of the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43) — Prohibition on age discrimination — National legislation allowing fixed-term employment contracts on the sole condition that the worker has reached the age of 58 — Compatibility of that legislation with the above-cited provisions — Legal consequences of any incompatibility

      Operative part of the judgment

   Clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999 and annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘a close objective connection with a previous employment contract of indefinite duration concluded with the same employer’, provided for in Paragraph 14(3) of the Law on part-time employment and fixed-term employment contracts (Gesetz über Teilzeitarbeit und befristete Arbeitsverträge) of 21 December 2000, must be applied to situations in which a fixed-term contract has not been immediately preceded by a contract of indefinite duration concluded with the same employer and an interval of several years separates those contracts, where, for that entire period, the initial employment relationship continued for the same activity, with the same employer, by means of an uninterrupted succession of fixed-term contracts. It is for the national court, to the fullest extent possible, to interpret the relevant provisions of national law in such a way as to comply with Clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement.

      (1)  OJ C 141, 20.6.2009.


title: Case T-153/15 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 20 May 2015 — Hamcho and Hamcho International v Council (Application for interim measures — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Freezing of funds and restriction on entry into and transit through the territory of the European Union — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Failure to comply with the procedural requirements — Inadmissibility)

text:
               6.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/20

         Order of the President of the General Court of 20 May 2015 — Hamcho and Hamcho International v Council
   (Case T-153/15 R)
   ((Application for interim measures - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Freezing of funds and restriction on entry into and transit through the territory of the European Union - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Failure to comply with the procedural requirements - Inadmissibility))
   (2015/C 221/28)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Mohamad Hamcho (Damascus, Syria); and Hamcho International (Damascus) (represented by: A. Boesch, D. Amaudruz and M. Ponsard, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Re:

   Application for suspension of operation of the measures imposed on the applicants under Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/108 of 26 January 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2015 L 20, p. 2), and of Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/117 of 26 January 2015 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2015 L 20, p. 85).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case T-505/09: Order of the General Court of 6 September 2010 — Carlyle v OHIM — MRP Consult (CAFE CARLYLE)

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/66

      Order of the General Court of 6 September 2010 — Carlyle v OHIM — MRP Consult (CAFE CARLYLE)
      (Case T-505/09) (1)

      ()
      (2010/C 288/121)
      Language of the case: English
      The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 51, 27.2.2010.


title: Case T-503/15: Judgment of the General Court of 3 May 2016 — Aranynektár v EUIPO — Naturval Apícola (Natür-bal) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark Natür-bal — Earlier EU word mark NATURVAL — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               20.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 222/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 3 May 2016 — Aranynektár v EUIPO — Naturval Apícola (Natür-bal)
   (Case T-503/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark Natür-bal - Earlier EU word mark NATURVAL - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 222/21)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Aranynektár Termékgyártó és Kereskedelmi KFT (Dunavarsány, Hungary) (represented by: I. Molnár, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Naturval Apícola, SL (Monserrat, Spain) (represented by: I. Valdelomar Serrano, D. Gabarre Armengol, G. Hinarejos Mulliez, E. Bayo de Gispert and J. Rodriguez Fuensalida, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 June 2015 (Case R 1158/2014-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Naturval Apícola and Aranynektár Termékgyártó és Kereskedelmi

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Aranynektár Termékgyártó és Kereskedelmi KFT to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 354, 26.10.2015.


title: Case C-211/01: Action brought on 23 May 2001 by Commission of the European Communities against Council of the European Union

text:
28.7.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 212/15
3.    If Question 2 is answered in the negative: Is it contrary to       their transposition. That time-limit expired on 15 June 1999
      Article 48 of the EC Treaty if an EC official living in            without the Italian Republic having brought into force the
      Luxembourg who is deemed to be resident in Germany                 necessary provisions in order to comply with the directive
      and pays contributions in Luxembourg to the statutory              referred to in the Commission’s application.
      pension insurance scheme for a household help is not
      entitled to deduct special expenditure under Para-
      graph 10(1)(8) of the Einkommensteuergesetz?                       (1) OJ L 71, 10.3.1998, p. 1.
4.    If Question 3 is answered in the affirmative: May the
      principles developed in the judgment in Case C-112/91
      Werner [1993] ECR I-429 be applied to the present case?
                                                                         Action brought on 23 May 2001 by Commission of the
                                                                         European Communities against Council of the European
                                                                                Union
                                                                                (Case C-211/01)
Action brought on 22 May 2001 by the Commission of                                               (2001/C 212/26)
 the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                         An action against Council of the European Union was brought
                                                                         before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                         (Case C-210/01)                                 23 May 2001 by the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties, represented by M. Wolfcarius, acting as Agent, with an
                                                                         address for service in Luxembourg.
                         (2001/C 212/25)
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the            —     annul the Council decisions of 19 March 2001 concern-
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 May                         ing the conclusion of the agreement between the Euro-
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,                            pean Community and Bulgaria and Hungary (1) on trans-
represented by Hans Støvlbæk and Roberto Amorosi, acting as                    port inasmuch as they are based on Article 93 EC whereas
Agents.                                                                        the necessary and sufficient legal basis is Article 71 EC;
                                                                         —     maintain the effects of those agreements until the Council
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    adopts new measures;
                                                                         —     order the Council to pay the costs.
—     Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
      within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with Com-
      mission Directive 98/11/EC of 27 January 1998                      Pleas in law and main arguments
      implementing Council Directive 92/75/EEC with regard
      to energy labelling of household lamps (1) or, in any              The proper legal basis for the adoption of the transport
      event, by failing to forward them to the Commission, the           agreements referred to is Article 71 EC, the only basis required
      Italian Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under that       by the primary objective of the said instruments. The fiscal
      directive; and                                                     element must form an integral part of those agreements
                                                                         because it is involved in the objective of implementing the
—     Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                       common transport policy. Its role is to ensure that the system
                                                                         of reciprocal authorisations, created under the agreements, is
                                                                         run in a non-discriminatory manner.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          The concurrent use of Article 93 EC as a legal basis is precluded
                                                                         by the fact that Article 71 requires only qualified majority
                                                                         voting in the Council, whereas Article 93 requires unanimity.
Under Article 249 of the EC Treaty, according to which a                 Admittedly, the problem regarding consultation of the Euro-
directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon        pean Parliament has not arisen in practice in light of
each Member State to which it is addressed, Member States are            Article 300(3) which governs the conclusion of international
required to observe the time-limits laid down in directives for          agreements. Nevertheless the possibility remains since the
 ---pagebreak--- C 212/16               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      28.7.2001
requirement of unanimity of the Council would radically                  Action brought on 22 May 2001 by the Commission of
change the procedure for concluding such transport agree-                the European Communities against the Federal Republic
ments, which are normally subject to qualified majority voting.                                     of Germany
(1) Council Decision 2001/265/EC concerning the conclusion of the
    Agreement between the European Community and the Republic                                     (Case C-214/01)
    of Bulgaria establishing certain conditions for the carriage of
    goods by road and the promotion of combined transport (OJ
    2001 L 108, p. 4).
    Council Decision 2001/266/EC concerning the conclusion of the
    Agreement between the European Community and the Republic                                     (2001/C 212/28)
    of Hungary establishing certain conditions for the carriage of
    goods by road and the promotion of combined transport (OJ
    2001 L 108, p. 4).
                                                                         An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                                                                         brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties on 22 May 2001 by the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities, represented by Götz zur Hausen, legal adviser,
                                                                         with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of G.
                                                                         Berscheid, legal adviser, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht
Innsbruck (Austria) by order of that court of 9 May 2001                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
in the case of Margarete Unterpertinger v Pensionsver-
                sicherungsanstalt der Arbeiter                           1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary
                                                                               to fulfil its obligations under Articles 6, 7 and 9 of
                         (Case C-212/01)                                       Council Directive 89/618/Euratom (1) of 27 November
                                                                               1989 on informing the general public about health
                                                                               protection measures to be applied and steps to be taken
                         (2001/C 212/27)                                       in the event of a radiological emergency, the Federal
                                                                               Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         under that directive.
European Communities by order of the Landesgericht Inns-
bruck (District Court) of 9 May 2001 which was received at               2.    Order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
the Court Registry on 23 May 2001, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Margarete Unterpertinger against Pensionsver-
sicherungsanstalt der Arbeiter on the following questions:
1.    Is Article 13A(1)(c) of the Sixth Council Directive
      (77/388/EEC) (1) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation               Pleas in law and main arguments
      of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover
      taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
      basis of assessment, to be interpreted as meaning that the
      exemption from value added tax provided for therein
                                                                         —     Incorrect transposition of Article 6 of the directive: The
      does not apply to turnover from the activity of a doctor
                                                                               requirement under Article 6 to inform the population
      which consists in determining the disability or ability of
                                                                               affected has not been ensured by means of binding legal
      a person applying for a pension?
                                                                               provisions in Germany. Article 6 is, however, of central
2.    Is the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European                  importance in order to achieve the objective set out in
      Communities in Case C-384/98 D v W to be interpreted                     Article 1 of improving the health protection of the
      as meaning that medical examinations and expert                          population; for the effectiveness of those provisions of
      opinions based on them for the purpose of establishing                   the directive it is therefore important that the content
      or excluding disability, incapacity to work or invalidity                and scope of the authorities’ obligations to inform the
      do not fall within the scope of application of the provision             public are sufficiently clear and are not a matter of choice
      referred to in Question 1 above, whether or not the                      by the administrative authorities, as is the case with an
      doctor who acts as an expert is instructed by a court or a               administrative instruction.
      pension insurance institution?
                                                                         —     Failure to implement Article 7 of the directive: In the
                                                                               Commission’s view legally binding provisions are also
(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.                                                 necessary in order to implement Article 7 of the directive.
                                                                               The provision made there for persons involved in emerg-
                                                                               ency assistance to be informed is not, however, ensured
                                                                               in Germany by means of binding legal provisions.


title: Case T-251/11: Action brought on 18 May 2011 — Austria v Commission

text:
               6.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/30

         Action brought on 18 May 2011 — Austria v Commission
   (Case T-251/11)
   2011/C 232/55
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer, Agent)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission Decision C(2011) 1363 of 8 March 2011 on the Austrian State aid measure No C 24/2009 for energy-intensive businesses under the Green Electricity Act;

               —

               order the Commission 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, alleging incorrect application of Article 107 (1) TFEU — no State aid:
               In the applicant’s opinion, Section 22c of the Austrian Green Electricity Act (BGBL. I No 114/2008) (ÖSG) limiting costs for energy-intensive businesses is not State Aid for the reason that no use of ‘State resources’ is involved.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging incorrect application of Article 107 (1) TFEU –absence of selectivity:
               In the applicant’s opinion, neither de iure selectivity nor de facto selectivity can be considered to exist. Even if that is assumed from the fact that Section 22c ÖSG leads to a departure from the reference price system, that departure appears justified by the rationale and internal structure of the system for the support of green electricity.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging incorrect application of Article 107 (1) TFEU — misuse of discretion:
               If the proposed measure were nonetheless to be deemed to be aid, the measure falls, in the applicant’s opinion, within the scope of the Community guidelines on State aid for environmental protection: There is moreover an analogy to be drawn between the notified compensatory payment under Section 22c ÖSG and the rules for the assessment of exemptions from energy taxes covered by Community legislation under Section 4 of the Guidelines; consequently, on the basis of that analogy, the compensatory arrangement ought to have been permitted. In addition to the application by analogy of the Guidelines, an analogy with Article 25 of the general block exemption regulation is also conceivable.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law: Different treatment by the European Commission of comparable situations in terms of competition:
               In the applicant’s opinion, the question arises why comparable situations in terms of competition — with reference to the similarities between the ÖSG and the German Renewable Energy Act, particularly in respect of the economic and competitive effects — have manifestly been treated differently. That appears incompatible with the general principle of equal treatment.


title: Case T-49/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 July 2006 — Hassan v Council and Commission ( (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban — Competence of the Community — Freezing of funds — Fundamental rights — Jus cogens — Review by the Court — Action for annulment and damages) )

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/36

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 July 2006 — Hassan v Council and Commission
   (Case T-49/04) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban - Competence of the Community - Freezing of funds - Fundamental rights - Jus cogens - Review by the Court - Action for annulment and damages))
   (2006/C 224/77)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Faraj Hassan (Brixton, United Kingdom) (represented by: E. Grieves, Barrister, and H. Miller, Solicitor)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Marquardt and E. Finnegan, Agents) and Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Enegren and C. Brown, Agents)
   Re:
   Application, first, for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan (OJ 2002 L 139, p. 9), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2049/2003 of 20 November 2003 amending Regulation No 881/2002 for the 25th time (OJ 2003 L 303, p. 20), and, second, for damages
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 94, 17.4.2004.


title: Case C-490/10: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 September 2012 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 617/2010 — Notification to the Commission of investment projects in energy infrastructure within the European Union — Choice of legal basis — Article 337 TFEU and Article 187 EA — Article 194 TFEU)

text:
               27.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/2

      Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 September 2012 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union
      (Case C-490/10) (1)

      (Action for annulment - Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 617/2010 - Notification to the Commission of investment projects in energy infrastructure within the European Union - Choice of legal basis - Article 337 TFEU and Article 187 EA - Article 194 TFEU)
      (2012/C 331/03)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Gómez-Leal, J. Rodrigues and L. Visaggio, Agents)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Simm and A. Lo Monaco, Agents)

         Intervening parties in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and A. Adam, Agents); European Commission (represented by: P. Oliver and O. Beynet, Agents)

         Re:

      Action for annulment — Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 617/2010 of 24 June 2010 concerning the notification to the Commission of investment projects in energy infrastructure within the European Union and repealing Regulation (EC) No 736/96 (OJ 2010 L 180, p. 7) — Choice of the dual legal basis of Articles 337 TFEU and 187 EA — Measures falling within the specific responsibilities of the Union in relation to energy and requiring the legal basis of Article 194 TFEU only

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 617/2010 of 24 June 2010 concerning the notification to the Commission of investment projects in energy infrastructure within the European Union and repealing Regulation (EC) No 736/96;

                  2.

                  Maintains the effects of Regulation No 617/2010 until the entry into force, within a reasonable period, of a new regulation adopted on the appropriate legal basis, namely Article 194(2) TFEU;

                  3.

                  Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs except those of the French Republic and the European Commission;

                  4.

                  Orders the French Republic and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2011.


               25.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/33

         Removal from the Register of Case T-237/99 (1)

   (2005/C 155/61)

      (Language of the case: Dutch)

   By order of 11 April 2005, the President of the Second Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-237/99, Nederland V.O.F., BP Direct V.O.F. and Actomat B.V., supported by the Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 20 of 22.01.2000.


title: Case C-45/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Office national d’allocations familiales pour travailleurs salariés (ONAFTS) v Radia Hadj Ahmed (Social security for migrant workers — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Scope ratione personae — Grant of family benefits to a third-country national with a right of residence in a Member State — Regulation (EC) No 859/2003 — Directive 2004/38/EC — Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 — Length-of-residence requirement)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/25

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Office national d’allocations familiales pour travailleurs salariés (ONAFTS) v Radia Hadj Ahmed
   (Case C-45/12) (1)

   (Social security for migrant workers - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Scope ratione personae - Grant of family benefits to a third-country national with a right of residence in a Member State - Regulation (EC) No 859/2003 - Directive 2004/38/EC - Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 - Length-of-residence requirement)
   2013/C 225/40
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour du travail de Bruxelles

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Office national d’allocations familiales pour travailleurs salariés (ONAFTS)

      Defendant: Radia Hadj Ahmed

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Cour du travail de Bruxelles — Interpretation of Article 1(f) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2) — Interpretation of Articles 13(2) and 14 of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77) — Interpretation of Article 18 TFEU and Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Grant of family benefits to a third-country national who has obtained a permit to reside in a Member State in order to join, not in the context of marriage or registered partnership, a national of another Member State — Presence of another child who is a third-country national — Scope ratione personae of Regulation No 1408/71 — Definition of ‘member of the family’ — National legislation imposing length-of-residence requirement for the grant of family benefits — Equal treatment

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1992/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that a third-country national or her daughter, who is also a third-country national, while their situation is the following:

                           —

                           that third-country national obtained, less than five years earlier, a permit to reside in a Member State in order to join, not in the context of marriage or registered partnership, a national of another Member State, by whom she has a child who has the nationality of the latter Member State;

                           —

                           only that national of another Member State has the status of worker;

                           —

                           in the meantime the cohabitation of the third-country national and the national of another Member State has come to an end; and

                           —

                           both children are members of their mother’s household,

                     do not come within the scope ratione personae of that regulation, unless that third-country national or her daughter can be regarded, within the meaning of the national legislation and for its application, as ‘members of the family’ of the national of another Member State or, where that is not the case, unless they can be regarded as being ‘mainly dependent’ on him.

               2.

               Articles 13(2) and 14 of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, read in conjunction with Article 18 TFEU, must be interpreted as not precluding the legislation of a Member State by which the latter subjects the grant of guaranteed family benefits to a third-country national, while her situation is as described in point 1 of this operative part, to a length-of-residence requirement of five years although its own nationals are not subject to that requirement.

      (1)  OJ C 109, 14.4.2012.


title: Case F-73/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 28 September 2015 — Kriscak v Europol (Civil Service — Europol staff — Europol Convention — Staff Regulations of Europol — Annex 1 to the Staff Regulations of Europol — List of the posts given in bold characters which may be occupied only by a person recruited from a competent authority within the meaning of Article 2(4) of the Europol Convention — Restricted posts — Europol Decision — Posts which may be occupied only by a person recruited from a competent authority within the meaning of Article 3 of the Europol Decision — Application of the CEOS to Europol staff — Non-renewal of a fixed-term temporary contract — Refusal to grant a temporary contract of undetermined duration — Action for annulment — Action for compensation)

text:
               9.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/46

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 28 September 2015 — Kriscak v Europol
   (Case F-73/14) (1)

   ((Civil Service - Europol staff - Europol Convention - Staff Regulations of Europol - Annex 1 to the Staff Regulations of Europol - List of the posts given in bold characters which may be occupied only by a person recruited from a competent authority within the meaning of Article 2(4) of the Europol Convention - Restricted posts - Europol Decision - Posts which may be occupied only by a person recruited from a competent authority within the meaning of Article 3 of the Europol Decision - Application of the CEOS to Europol staff - Non-renewal of a fixed-term temporary contract - Refusal to grant a temporary contract of undetermined duration - Action for annulment - Action for compensation))
   (2015/C 371/48)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Christiana Kriscak (The Hague, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Police Office (Europol) (represented by: D. Neumann, J. Arnould and C. Falmagne, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision not to renew the applicant’s contract and for compensation for the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly unfounded.

               2.

               The European Police Office shall bear its own costs and shall pay one third of the costs incurred by Ms Kriscak.

               3.

               Ms Kriscak shall bear two thirds of her own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 380, 27.10.2014, p. 27.


title: Case T-97/03: Action brought on 5 March 2003 by Ferriera Valsabbia S.p.A. and Valsabbia Investimenti S.p.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
10.5.2003               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 112/45
Action brought on 5 March 2003 by Ferriera Valsabbia                        Action brought on 5 March 2003 by Alfa Acciai S.p.A.
S.p.A. and Valsabbia Investimenti S.p.A. against the Com-                      against the Commission of the European Communities
            mission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-98/03)
                            (Case T-97/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 112/84)
                           (2003/C 112/83)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                   ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                  European Communities on 5 March 2003 by Alfa Acciai
European Communities on 5 March 2003 by Ferriera Valsabbia                  S.p.A., represented by Denis Fosselard, Piero Fattori and
S.p.A. and Valsabbia Investimenti S.p.A, represented by Denis               Gennaro d’Andria, lawyers.
Fosselard, Piero Fattori and Gennaro d’Andria, lawyers.
                                                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                            —     annul Article 1 of the Decision in so far as it concerns the
—     annul Article 1 of the Decision in so far as it concerns the                applicant;
      applicants;
                                                                            —     in the alternative, annul Article 1 of the Decision in so
—     in the alternative, annul Article 1 of the Decision in so
                                                                                far as it alleges that the applicant participated in an
      far as it alleges that the applicants participated in an
                                                                                infringement prior to 13 February 1996;
      infringement prior to 13 February 1996;
                                                                            —     annul Article 2 of the Decision in so far as it concerns the
—     annul Article 2 of the Decision in so far as it concerns the
                                                                                applicant;
      applicants;
—     in the alternative, amend Article 2 of the Decision so as             —     in the alternative, amend Article 2 of the Decision so as
      to cancel or substantially reduce the fine imposed on the                   to cancel or substantially reduce the fine imposed on the
                                                                                applicant;
      applicants;
—     order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.             —     order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                             Pleas in law and main arguments
This action is brought against the same Decision as has already             This action is brought against the same Decision as has already
been challenged in Case T-27/03 S.P. v Commission (1). The                  been challenged in Case T-27/03 S.P. v Commission ( 1). The
pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put                    pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put
forward in that case.                                                       forward in that case.
( 1) Not yet published in the Official Journal.                             (1 ) Not yet published in the Official Journal.


title: Case C-527/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 7 October 2013 — Lourdes Cachaldora Fernandez v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS)

text:
               11.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/17

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 7 October 2013 — Lourdes Cachaldora Fernandez v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS)
   (Case C-527/13)
   2014/C 9/26
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Lourdes Cachaldora Fernandez

      Defendants: Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS)

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is a national provision, such as additional provision 7(1), rule 3(b) of Spain’s General Law on Social Security, contrary to Article 4 of Council Directive 79/7 (1) of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security, in that it affects a group comprising mainly women, and according to which contribution gaps existing within the period for calculating the reference base of a permanent invalidity contributory pension, after a period of part-time employment, are covered by taking the minimum contribution bases applicable at any time, reduced as a result of the partiality coefficient of the employment before the contribution gap, whereas if the employment is full-time, there is no reduction?

               2.

               Is a national provision, such as additional provision 7(1), rule 3(b) of Spain’s General Law on Social Security, contrary to clause 5(1)(a) of Council Directive 97/81/EC (2) of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, in that it affects a group comprising mainly women, and according to which contribution gaps existing within the period for calculating the reference base of a permanent invalidity contributory pension, after a period of part-time employment, are covered by taking the minimum contribution bases applicable at any time, reduced as a result of the partiality coefficient of the employment before the contribution gap, whereas if it the employment is full-time, there is no reduction?

      (1)  OJ 1979 L 6, 10.1.1979, p. 24.

      (2)  OJ 1998 L 14, 20.1.1998, p. 9.


title: Case C-427/09: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom)) — Generics (UK) Ltd v Synaptech Inc (Patent law — Medicinal products — Supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products — Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 — Article 2 — Scope)

text:
               8.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 298/3

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom)) — Generics (UK) Ltd v Synaptech Inc
   (Case C-427/09) (1)

   (Patent law - Medicinal products - Supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products - Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 - Article 2 - Scope)
   2011/C 298/04
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Generics (UK) Ltd

      Defendant: Synaptech Inc

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) — Interpretation of Article 13(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (OJ 1992 L 182, p. 1) — Concept of first authorisation to place the product on the market — Account taken only of authorisations issued in accordance with Council Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to medicinal products (OJ, English Special Edition 1965-1966, p. 24) — Authorisation delivered in accordance with the legislation applicable in Austria before the latter acceded to the EEA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   A product, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which was placed on the market in the European Community as a medicinal product for human use before obtaining a marketing authorisation in accordance with Council Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to medicinal products, as amended by Council Directive 89/341/EEC of 3 May 1989, and, in particular, without undergoing safety and efficacy testing, is not within the scope of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products, as amended by the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, as that scope is defined in Article 2 of that regulation, as amended, and may not be the subject of a supplementary protection certificate.

      (1)  OJ C 11, 16.1.2010.


title: Case C-405/07 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 November 2008 — Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Article 95(5) EC — Directive 98/69/EC — Measures to be taken against air pollution by emissions from motor vehicles — Derogating national provision advancing the lowering of the Community limit on emissions of particulate matter produced by certain new diesel-powered vehicles — Commission's refusal — Specificity of the problem — Duties of care and to state reasons)

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/5

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 November 2008 — Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-405/07 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Article 95(5) EC - Directive 98/69/EC - Measures to be taken against air pollution by emissions from motor vehicles - Derogating national provision advancing the lowering of the Community limit on emissions of particulate matter produced by certain new diesel-powered vehicles - Commission's refusal - Specificity of the problem - Duties of care and to state reasons)
   (2008/C 327/08)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Appellant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: D.J.M. de Grave and C.M. Wissels, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Patakia, H. van Vliet and A. Alcover San Pedro, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of 27 June 2007 of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) in Case T-182/06 Netherlands v Commission, by which it dismissed the application for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/372/EC of 3 May 2006 concerning draft national provisions notified by the Kingdom of the Netherlands under Article 95(5) EC laying down limits on the emissions of particulate matter by diesel-powered vehicles (OJ 2006 L 142, p. 16)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of 27 June 2007 of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission (T-182/06);

               2.

               Annuls Commission Decision 2006/372/EC of 3 May 2006 concerning draft national provisions notified by the Kingdom of the Netherlands under Article 95(5) EC laying down limits on the emissions of particulate matter by diesel-powered vehicles;

               3.

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

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.


title: Case C-237/12: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 September 2014 — European Commission v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 91/676/EEC — Article 5(4) — Annex II.A, points 1 to 3 and 5 — Annex III.1, points 1 to 3, and Annex III.2 — Protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources — Periods for land application — Capacity of storage vessels for livestock manure — Limitation of land application — Prohibition on land application on steeply sloping ground or on snow-covered or frozen ground — Non-compliance of national legislation)

text:
               10.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 395/3

      Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 September 2014 — European Commission v French Republic
      (Case C-237/12) (1)

      ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 91/676/EEC - Article 5(4) - Annex II.A, points 1 to 3 and 5 - Annex III.1, points 1 to 3, and Annex III.2 - Protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources - Periods for land application - Capacity of storage vessels for livestock manure - Limitation of land application - Prohibition on land application on steeply sloping ground or on snow-covered or frozen ground - Non-compliance of national legislation))
      (2014/C 395/04)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Manhaeve, B. Simon and J. Hottiaux, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, S. Menez and D. Colas, acting as Agents)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1)

                  Declares that, by not adopting the measures necessary to ensure the full and correct implementation of all the requirements imposed on it by Article 5(4) of Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution by nitrates from agricultural sources, read together with Annex II.A, points 1 to 3 and 5, Annex III.1, points 1 to 3, and Annex III.2, to that directive, the French Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive, in so far as, in the national legislation adopted in order to ensure the implementation of that directive:

                              —

                              there is no provision for periods of prohibition on land application of type I fertilisers in respect of autumn-planted arable crops and grasslands planted for more than six months;

                              —

                              the period of prohibition on land application of type I fertilisers in respect of spring-planted arable crops is limited to the months of July and August;

                              —

                              the prohibition on land application of type II fertilisers in respect of autumn-planted arable crops is restricted to the period from 1 November to 15 January and the prohibition of land application of type III fertilisers for those crops is not extended after 15 January;

                              —

                              the period of prohibition on land application of type II fertilisers in respect of spring-planted arable crops is not extended after 15 January;

                              —

                              there is provision for a period of prohibition on land application of type II fertilisers in respect of grasslands planted for more than six months only from 15 November and the prohibition on land application of type III fertilisers in respect of those grasslands and in mountain areas is not extended until the end of February;

                              —

                              until 1 July 2016 it will still be possible for the calculation of storage capacities to take account of scheduled times for prohibition on land application which are not compatible with the requirements of the directive;

                              —

                              the field storage of solid straw manure is permitted for a period lasting ten months;

                              —

                              the national legislation does not ensure that farmers and the monitoring authorities are in a position to calculate correctly the quantity of nitrogen which may be applied to land in order to ensure balanced fertilisation;

                              —

                              as regards dairy cows, the nitrogen discharge values are established on the basis of a quantity of excreted nitrogen which does not take into account different levels of milk production and on the basis of a volatilisation coefficient of 30 %;

                              —

                              as regards other cattle, the nitrogen discharge values are established on the basis of a volatilisation coefficient of 30 %;

                              —

                              as regards pigs, nitrogen discharge values for solid manure are not established;

                              —

                              as regards poultry, the nitrogen discharge values are established on the basis of an incorrect volatilisation coefficient of 60 %;

                              —

                              as regards sheep, the nitrogen discharge values are established on the basis of a volatilisation coefficient of 30 %;

                              —

                              as regards goats, the nitrogen discharge values are established on the basis of a volatilisation coefficient of 30 %;

                              —

                              as regards horses, the nitrogen discharge values are established on the basis of a volatilisation coefficient of 30 %;

                              —

                              as regards rabbits, the nitrogen discharge values are established on the basis of a volatilisation coefficient of 60 %;

                              —

                              the national legislation does not contain clear, precise and objective criteria, in accordance with the requirements of the principle of legal certainty, concerning the conditions for the land application of fertilisers on steeply sloping ground;

                              —

                              the land application of type I and III fertilisers on frozen ground; the land application of type I fertilisers on snow-covered ground; the land application of fertilisers on ground which is only superficially frozen as a result of a 24-hour cycle of freezing and thaw, and the land application on frozen ground of solid straw manure and composts of livestock manure are permitted.

                  2)

                  Dismisses the action as to the remainder.

                  3)

                  Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 217, 21. 7. 2012.


title: Case T-237/02: Action brought on 8 August 2002 by Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
28.9.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 233/35
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant in the present case is contesting the decision to          By application of 15 April 2002 the applicant, a manufacturer
transfer him from the Commission’s delegation in Luanda to               of special glass, requested, pursuant to Article 6(1) of Regu-
the Directorate-General for Development in Brussels. That                lation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of
decision is allegedly connected with illness caused by personal          the Council (1), access to documents relating to various State
conflicts in which he was involved within the said delegation            aid procedures. Two of those procedures concerned the
in Luanda.                                                               applicant itself as a presumed recipient of State aid; the others
                                                                         concerned one of its competitors on the special glass markets,
In support of his claims, the applicant pleads:                          the firm Schott Glass. The applicant’s action is directed at the
                                                                         Commission’s decision of 28 May 2002 in so far as it refuses
—     failure to provide a statement of reasons, inasmuch as the         to grant access to the documents in the aid procedures
      mere reference to the interests of the service cannot be           concerning the applicant itself and in procedures concerning
      regarded as satisfactory in that respect;                          Schott Glass and are already completed.
—     infringement of the principle of proper administration,            The applicant submits that the Commission’s refusal manifestly
      alternatively failure to discharge the duty to have regard         infringes Article 2(1) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/
      for the welfare and interests of officials;                        2001. The applicant had a right to access which was not
                                                                         restricted by Article 4 of the regulation. In particular, the
—     non-compliance with the principle that the interested
                                                                         Commission had not proved the existence of any specific
      party should be heard in advance of the adoption of a
                                                                         impairment of the protected interests set out in Article 4(2) of
      decision, inasmuch as the contested decision was taken
                                                                         the regulation.
      without any prior notice to the person concerned;
—     the decision at issue is indicative in several respects of a       Furthermore, the applicant submits that the Commission
      misuse of powers, since it is apparent from the overall            wrongly relied on the exception relating to the protection of
      circumstances of the case that the objective actually              the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits. Referring
      pursued was not of a merely organisational nature but              to Article 4(7) of the regulation, the applicant submits that it
      was to distance the applicant from Angola and from the             has at the very least the right to access to documents in
      functions which he was responsible for performing there.           examination procedures which have already been completed.
                                                                         Moreover, it ought to have been possible for the Commission
                                                                         to grant the applicant access to a document in which business
                                                                         secrets had been obscured and thus to grant partial access in
                                                                         accordance with Article 4(6) of the regulation.
Action brought on 8 August 2002 by Technische Glaswer-                   Finally, the Commission infringed its obligation to state
ke Ilmenau GmbH against the Commission of the Euro-                      reasons in accordance with Article 253 EC, since it had merely
                        pean Communities                                 given a general statement of reasons.
                         (Case T-237/02)
                                                                         (1 ) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and
                                                                              of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to
                         (2002/C 233/61)                                      European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ
                                                                              2001 L 145 p. 43).
                   (Language of the case: German)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 8 August 2002 by Technische                      Action brought on 9 August 2002 by José Barbosa
Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH, whose registered office is at                    Gonçalves against Commission of the European Com-
Ilmenau (Germany), represented by G. Schohe and Ch. Arhold,                                           munities
lawyers, acting as agents, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.                                                                                (Case T-238/02)
The applicant claims that the Court should                                                        (2002/C 233/62)
—     annul the Commission’s decision of 28 May 2002
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
      concerning the applicant’s application for access to
      documents — D(2002) 330168 — except for the part in
      which access is refused to documents directly connected
      with the pending aid procedure concerning Schott;                  An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                              European Communities on 9 August 2002 by José Barbosa


7.3.98               EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 72/15
      Removal from the register of Case C-286/97 (1)                    Removal from the register of Case C-26/95 (1)
                         (98/C 72/31)                                                     (98/C 72/34)
By order of 17 November 1997 the President of the Court          By order of 26 November 1997 the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the           of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-286/97: Commission           removal from the register of Case C-26/95 (reference for a
of the European Communities v. Portuguese Republic.              preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
                                                                 Terni): Criminal proceedings against Ivana Rosi.
(1) OJ C 295, 27.9.1997.
                                                                 (1) OJ C 74, 25.3.1995.
      Removal from the register of Case C-141/97 (1)
                         (98/C 72/32)                                   Removal from the register of Case C-49/97 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 72/35)
By order of 20 November 1997 the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-141/97: Commission           By order of 1 December 1997 the President of the Court
of the European Communities v. Italian Republic.                 of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                 removal from the register of Case C-49/97: Commission of
(1) OJ C 181, 14.6.1997.                                         the European Communities v. French Republic.
                                                                 (1) OJ C 108, 5.4.1997.
       Removal from the register of Case C-88/97 (1)
                         (98/C 72/33)
                                                                       Removal from the register of Case C-227/97 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 72/36)
By order of 24 November 1997 the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-88/97: Commission of         By order of 1 December 1997 the President of the Court
the European Communities v. Portuguese Republic.                 of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                 removal from the register of Case C-227/97: Commission
(1) OJ C 108, 5.4.1997.                                          of the European Communities v. Portuguese Republic.
                                                                 (1) OJ C 228, 26.7.1997.


title: Case T-203/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 23 September 2008 — Cemex Polska v Commission (Action for annulment — Directive 2003/87/EC — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading — National allocation plan in respect of emission allowances for Poland for the period from 2008 to 2012 — Decision by the Commission not to raise objections subject to certain conditions — Competence of Member States in the individual allocation of emission allowances — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/39

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 23 September 2008 — Cemex Polska v Commission
   (Case T-203/07) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Directive 2003/87/EC - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading - National allocation plan in respect of emission allowances for Poland for the period from 2008 to 2012 - Decision by the Commission not to raise objections subject to certain conditions - Competence of Member States in the individual allocation of emission allowances - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility)
   (2008/C 301/66)
   Language of the case: Polish
   Parties

      Applicant: Cemex Polska sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: F. Puel and M. Szpunar, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: U.Wölker and K. Herrmann, Agents)
   Re:
   APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 1295 final of 26 March 2007 concerning the national allocation plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by the Republic of Poland for the period from 2008 to 2012 in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Cemex Polska sp. z o.o. shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 170, 21.7.2007.


title: Case F-44/06: Action brought on  26 April 2003  — C v Commission

text:
               1.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 154/25

         Action brought on 26 April 2003 — C v Commission
   (Case F-44/06)
   (2006/C 154/58)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: C (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

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

               —

               Annul the Appointing Authority's decision of 13 June 2005 refusing to adopt any measure to comply with the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 23 November 2004 in Case T-376/02 O v Commission
                   (1);

               —

               Annul the decision of the Director of DG ADMIN/C: Social welfare policy, Luxembourg staff, health, safety of 23 February 2006 compulsorily retiring the applicant with entitlement to an invalidity pension to be determined in accordance with the provisions of the second paragraph of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations, with retroactive effect from 1 February 2002;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicant a sum assessed on equitable grounds at EUR 15 000 on account of breach of the principle that decisions must be adopted within a reasonable time;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Following the judgment in O v Commission, cited above, the applicant applied for the adoption by the Appointing Authority of measures to comply with that judgment. When that application was rejected, the applicant made a complaint, which was, in its turn, rejected in part by a decision of 11 January 2006. The Appointing Authority then adopted a new decision, dated 23 February 2006, compulsorily retiring the applicant with entitlement to an invalidity pension to be determined in accordance with the provisions of the second paragraph of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations, with retroactive effect from 1 February 2002.
   In support of his action, the applicant submits, first, that the last decision does not constitute full compliance with the judgment referred to above, in that it does not restore the applicant to his legal position before the adoption of the decision annulled by the Court of First Instance.
   Also, the decision of 23 February 2006 infringes Article 53 of the Staff Regulations, which provides that an official to whom the Invalidity Committee finds that the provisions of Article 78 apply must automatically be retired on the last day of the month in which the Appointing Authority recognises his permanent incapacity to perform his duties.
   Lastly, the applicant alleges breach of the principle that decisions must be adopted within a reasonable time, inasmuch as the decision of 23 February was adopted 15 months after the abovementioned judgment was delivered.

      (1)  ECR SC [2004] I-A-349 and II-1595.


title: Case T-10/17: Action brought on 9 January 2017 — Proof IT v EIGE

text:
               13.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/35

         Action brought on 9 January 2017 — Proof IT v EIGE
   (Case T-10/17)
   (2017/C 078/49)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Proof IT SIA (Riga, Latvia) (represented by: J. Jerņeva and D. Pāvila, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the European Institute for Gender Equality adopted in the procurement procedure for the award of a ‘Framework contract for online services’ EIGE/2016/OPER/03-Lot 1, notified to the applicant by letter of 28 October 2016, to rank the applicant’s tender in second place and to award the framework contract for lot 1 to a third company;

               —

               award damages to the applicant for loss of opportunity and/or for loss of the contract itself in the amount of EUR 72 270;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of equal treatment and transparency, the contract award criteria being imprecise and the evaluation process lacking transparency, thus conferring on the defendant unrestricted freedom of choice as regards awarding of the contract in question.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant has committed manifest errors of assessment in evaluating the applicant’s tender, which, once corrected, would lead to a different result of the procurement procedure, i.e. the applicant’s tender should have been ranked first and the framework contract awarded to the applicant.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of equal treatment by interpreting the award criteria in such a way that the third company concerned benefited from the knowledge acquired during performance of a previous similar contract with EIGE.


title: Case C-298/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Bíróság Gazdasági Kollégiuma (Hungary) lodged on 29 July 2009 — RANI Slovakia s.r.o. v Hankook Tire Magyarország Kft.

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/32

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Bíróság Gazdasági Kollégiuma (Hungary) lodged on 29 July 2009 — RANI Slovakia s.r.o. v Hankook Tire Magyarország Kft.
   (Case C-298/09)
   2009/C 267/58
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Fővárosi Bíróság Gazdasági Kollégiuma

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: RANI Slovakia s.r.o.

      Defendant: Hankook Tire Magyarország Kft.

      Questions referred

               1.

               In view of Articles 3(c) and 59 of the Treaty of Rome, can the 19th recital in the preamble to Directive 96/71/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services be interpreted as meaning that, in relation to the activity of temporary employment undertakings, the national law of a Member State may freely establish the requirements to be imposed on employers (undertakings) for the taking up and pursuit of such an activity in the territory of the Member State concerned and, in that regard, restrict the recognition of temporary employment undertakings to those undertakings established in its territory?

               2.

               Can Article 1(4) of Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council be interpreted as meaning that, in relation to the authorisation to undertake their activity, undertakings established in the Member State in question may be given more favourable treatment than undertakings established in another Member State?

               3.

               Can Articles 59, 62 and 63 of the Treaty of Rome, read together, be interpreted as meaning that the restrictions in place at the time of accession to the European Union may remain applicable, without being contrary to Community law, until the Council adopts a program laying down the conditions for the liberalisation of that type of service or the directives required for the implementation of that program?

               4.

               If the above questions are answered in the negative, is there any reason in the general interest justifying the restriction that the activity of temporary employment undertakings can be carried out only by undertakings which are established and registered in the Member State in question and thus making it possible to regard that restriction as being compatible with Articles 59 and 65 of the Treaty of Rome?

      (1)  OJ 1997 L l8, p. 1.