title: Joined Cases C-378/07 to C-380/07: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 April 2009 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles Protodikio Rethimnis — Greece) — K. Angelidaki, A. Aivali, A. Vavouraki, Kh. Kaparou, M. Lioni, E. Makrigiannaki, E. Nisanaki, Kh. Panagiotou, A. Pitsidianaki, M. Khalkiadaki, Kh. Khalkiadaki (C-378/07), Kharikleia Giannoudi (C-379/07), Georgios Karampousanos, Sophocles Mikhopoulos (C-380/07) v Nomarkhiaki Aftodiikisi Rethimnis, Dimos Geropotamou (Directive 1999/70/EC — Clauses 5 and 8 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work — Fixed-term employment contracts in the public sector — First or single use of a contract — Successive contracts — Equivalent legal measure — Reduction in the general level of protection afforded to workers — Measures intended to prevent abuse — Penalties — Absolute prohibition on conversion of fixed-term employment contracts into contracts of indefinite duration in the public sector — Consequences of the incorrect transposition of a directive — Interpretation in conformity with Community law)

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/8

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 April 2009 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles Protodikio Rethimnis — Greece) — K. Angelidaki, A. Aivali, A. Vavouraki, Kh. Kaparou, M. Lioni, E. Makrigiannaki, E. Nisanaki, Kh. Panagiotou, A. Pitsidianaki, M. Khalkiadaki, Kh. Khalkiadaki (C-378/07), Kharikleia Giannoudi (C-379/07), Georgios Karampousanos, Sophocles Mikhopoulos (C-380/07) v Nomarkhiaki Aftodiikisi Rethimnis, Dimos Geropotamou
   (Joined Cases C-378/07 to C-380/07) (1)

   (Directive 1999/70/EC - Clauses 5 and 8 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work - Fixed-term employment contracts in the public sector - First or single use of a contract - Successive contracts - Equivalent legal measure - Reduction in the general level of protection afforded to workers - Measures intended to prevent abuse - Penalties - Absolute prohibition on conversion of fixed-term employment contracts into contracts of indefinite duration in the public sector - Consequences of the incorrect transposition of a directive - Interpretation in conformity with Community law)
   2009/C 141/12
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Monomeles Protodikio Rethimnis

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: K. Angelidaki, A. Aivali, A. Vavouraki, Kh. Kaparou, M. Lioni, E. Makrigiannaki, E. Nisanaki, Kh. Panagiotou, A. Pitsidianaki, M. Khalkiadaki, Kh. Khalkiadaki (C-378/07), Kharikleia Giannoudi (C-379/07), Georgios Karampousanos, Sophocles Mikhopoulos (C-380/07)

      Defendants: Nomarkhiaki Aftodiikisi Rethimnis, Dimos Geropotamou

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Monomeles Protodikio Rethimnis — Interpretation of Clauses 5 and 8(1) and (3) of the annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EEC concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43) — Prohibition on adopting national rules in the guise of transposition where an equivalent national measure, within the meaning of Clause 5(1) of the directive, already exists and the new rules lower the level of protection of workers under fixed-term employment contracts

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, which is 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 not precluding the adoption by a Member State of national legislation, such as Presidential Decree No 164/2004 laying down provisions concerning workers employed under fixed-term contracts in the public sector, which, for the purposes specifically of transposing Directive 1999/70 so as to implement the provisions of that directive in the public sector, provides for the implementation of the measures to prevent the misuse of successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships which are listed in clause 5(1)(a) to (c) where — which it is for the national court to ascertain — an ‘equivalent legal measure’ within the meaning of that clause already exists under national law, such as Article 8(3) of Law No 2112/1920 on compulsory notice of termination of contracts of employment of employees in the private sector, provided, however, that that legislation (i) does not affect the effectiveness of the prevention of the misuse of fixed-term employment contracts or relationships resulting from that equivalent legal measure, and (ii) complies with Community law and, in particular, with clause 8(3) of the Framework Agreement.

               2.

               Clause 5(1)(a) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work must be interpreted as precluding the application of national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, by the authorities of the Member State concerned in such a way that the renewal of successive fixed-term employment contracts in the public sector is deemed to be justified by ‘objective reasons’ within the meaning of that clause solely on the ground that those contracts are founded on legal provisions allowing them to be renewed in order to meet certain temporary needs when, in fact, those needs are fixed and permanent. By contrast, clause 5(1)(a) does not apply to the first or single use of a fixed-term employment contract or relationship.

               3.

               Clause 8(3) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work must be interpreted as meaning that the ‘reduction’ with which that clause is concerned must be considered in relation to the general level of protection applicable in the Member State concerned both to workers who have entered into successive fixed-term employment contracts and to workers who have entered into a first or single fixed-term employment contract.

               4.

               Clause 8(3) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as Presidential Decree No 164/2004, which, unlike an earlier rule of domestic law such as Article 8(3) of Law No 2112/1920, (i) no longer provides for fixed-term employment contracts to be recognised as contracts of indefinite duration where abuse arises from the use of such contracts in the public sector, or which makes such recognition subject to certain cumulative and restrictive conditions, and (ii) excludes from the benefit of the protection measures provided workers who have entered into a first or single fixed-term employment contract, where — which it is for the national court to ascertain — such amendments relate to a limited category of workers having entered into a fixed-term employment contract or are offset by the adoption of measures to prevent the misuse of fixed-term employment contracts within the meaning of clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement.
               However, the implementation of the Framework Agreement by national legislation such as Presidential Decree No 164/2004 cannot have the effect of reducing the protection previously applicable, under the domestic legal order, to fixed-term workers to a level below that set by the minimum protective provisions laid down by the Framework Agreement. In particular, compliance with clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement requires that such legislation should provide, in respect of the misuse of successive fixed-term employment contracts, effective and binding measures to prevent such misuse and penalties which are sufficiently effective and a sufficient deterrent to ensure that those preventive measures are fully effective. It is therefore for the referring court to establish that those conditions are fulfilled.

               5.

               In circumstances such as those of the cases in the main proceedings, the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work must be interpreted as meaning that, where the domestic law of the Member State concerned includes, in the sector under consideration, other effective measures to prevent and, where relevant, punish the abuse of successive fixed-term employment contracts within the meaning of clause 5(1) of that agreement, it does not preclude the application of a rule of national law which prohibits absolutely, in the public sector only, the conversion into a contract of indefinite duration of a succession of fixed-term employment contracts which, having been intended to cover fixed and permanent needs of the employer, must be regarded as constituting an abuse. It is none the less for the referring court to determine to what extent the conditions for application and effective implementation of the relevant provisions of domestic law constitute a measure adequate for the prevention and, where relevant, the punishment of the misuse by the public authorities of successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships.
               By contrast, since clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement is not applicable to workers who have entered into a first or single fixed-term employment contract, that provision does not require the Member States to adopt penalties where such a contract does in fact cover fixed and permanent needs of the employer.

               6.

               It is for the national court to interpret the relevant provisions of national law, so far as possible, in conformity with clauses 5(1) and 8(3) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work, and also to determine, in that context, whether an ‘equivalent legal measure’ within the meaning of clause 5(1), such as that provided for in Article 8(3) of Law No 2112/1920, must be applied to the main proceedings in place of certain other provisions of domestic law.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.


title: Case C-427/12: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 March 2014  — European Commission v European Parliament, Council of the European Union (Action for annulment  — Choice of legal basis  — Articles 290 TFEU and 291 TFEU  — Delegated act and implementing act  — Regulation (EU) No 528/2012  — Article 80(1)  — Biocidal products  — European Chemicals Agency  — Setting of fees by the Commission)

text:
               12.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/8

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 March 2014 — European Commission v European Parliament, Council of the European Union
   (Case C-427/12) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Choice of legal basis - Articles 290 TFEU and 291 TFEU - Delegated act and implementing act - Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 - Article 80(1) - Biocidal products - European Chemicals Agency - Setting of fees by the Commission))
   2014/C 142/08
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: B. Smulders, C. Zadra and E. Manhaeve, Agents)

      Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: L. Visaggio and A. Troupiotis, Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Moore and I. Šulce, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendants: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, E. Ruffer and D. Hadroušek, Agents), Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: V. Pasternak Jørgensen and C. Thorning, Agents), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, D. Colas and N. Rouam, Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman and M. Noort, Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by: H. Leppo and J. Leppo, Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: C. Murrell and M. Holt, Agents, and by B. Kennelly, Barrister)

      Re:

   Action for annulment — Article 80(1) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products (OJ 2012 L 167, p. 1), in so far as it provides for the adoption of measures setting the fees payable to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) by an implementing act under Article 291 TFEU and not by a delegated act in accordance with Article 290 TFEU — Choice of legal basis — Attribution of the regulatory powers which the EU legislature may confer on the Commission.

      Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, the French Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Finland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own respective costs.

      (1)  OJ C 355, 17.11.2012.


title: Case C-5/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Titus Alexander Jochen Donner (Free movement of goods — Industrial and commercial property — Sale of reproductions of works in a Member State in which the copyright on those works is not protected — Transport of those goods to another Member State in which the infringement of the copyright is sanctioned under criminal law — Criminal proceedings against the transporter for aiding and abetting the unlawful distribution of a work protected by copyright law)

text:
               18.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 250/3

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Titus Alexander Jochen Donner
   (Case C-5/11) (1)

   (Free movement of goods - Industrial and commercial property - Sale of reproductions of works in a Member State in which the copyright on those works is not protected - Transport of those goods to another Member State in which the infringement of the copyright is sanctioned under criminal law - Criminal proceedings against the transporter for aiding and abetting the unlawful distribution of a work protected by copyright law)
   2012/C 250/05
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Party in the main proceedings

   Titus Alexander Jochen Donner

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Articles 34 and 36 TFEU — Free movement of goods — Industrial and commercial property — Sale of reproductions of works in a Member State in which the copyright on those works is not protected — Transport of those goods to another Member State in which the infringement of the copyright is sanctioned under criminal law — Situation in which the transfer of property to the purchaser was made in the Member State of origin and the transfer of the de facto power of disposal takes place in the State of destination — Criminal proceedings against the transporter for aiding and abetting the unlawful distribution of a work protected by copyright law

      Operative part of the judgment

   A trader who directs his advertising at members of the public residing in a given Member State and creates or makes available to them a specific delivery system and payment method, or allows a third party to do so, thereby enabling those members of the public to receive delivery of copies of works protected by copyright in that same Member State, makes, in the Member State where the delivery takes place, a ‘distribution to the public’ under Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society.
   Articles 34 TFEU and 36 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude a Member State from bringing a prosecution under national criminal law for the offence of aiding and abetting the prohibited distribution of copyright-protected works where such works are distributed to the public on the territory of that Member State in the context of a sale, aimed specifically at the public of that State, concluded in another Member State where those works are not protected by copyright or the protection conferred on them is not enforceable as against third parties.

      (1)  OJ C 103, 2.4.2011.


title: Case T-617/14: Order of the General Court of 14 July 2015 — Pro Asyl v EASO (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Operational Plan for the deployment of an asylum support team in the territory of Bulgaria — Refusal of access — No need to adjudicate — Action for annulment — Electronic document register — Partial manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               28.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 320/27

         Order of the General Court of 14 July 2015 — Pro Asyl v EASO
   (Case T-617/14) (1)

   ((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Operational Plan for the deployment of an asylum support team in the territory of Bulgaria - Refusal of access - No need to adjudicate - Action for annulment - Electronic document register - Partial manifest inadmissibility))
   (2015/C 320/43)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Pro Asyl Bundesweite Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Flüchtlinge eV (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: S. Hilbrans, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Asylum Support Office (EASO) (represented by: L. Cerdán Ortiz-Quintana, acting as Agent, assisted by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of letter EASO/ED/2014/134 of the EASO of 10 June 2014.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action in so far as it seeks the annulment of letter EASO/ED/2014/134 of the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) of 10 June 2014 refusing access to the operational plan to deploy the European Union support team in Bulgaria.

               2.

               The remainder of the action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               3.

               Each party shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 409, 17.11.2014.


title: Case C-2/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Stuttgart (Germany) lodged on 4 January 2016 — Criminal proceedings against J. S. R.

text:
               4.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/8

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Stuttgart (Germany) lodged on 4 January 2016 — Criminal proceedings against J. S. R.
   (Case C-2/16)
   (2016/C 118/10)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Stuttgart

      Party to the main proceedings

   J. S. R.

      Question referred

   Is the inclusion of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (‘the LTTE’) in the list pursuant to Article 2(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism (1) for the period of time from 23 July 2007 to 11 March 2009, in particular on the basis of Council Decisions of

               —

               29 March 2006 (2006/379/EC), (2)

               —

               28 June 2007 (2007/445/EC), (3)

               —

               20 December 2007 (2007/868/EC in the version of the correction from the same day published in the Official Journal of the European Union L 340 of 22 December 2007), (4)

               —

               15 July 2008 (2008/583/EC) (5) and

               —

               26 January 2009 (2009/62/EC) (6)

               invalid?

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 344, p. 70.

      (2)  Council Decision of 29 May 2006 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2005/930/EC (OJ 2006 L 144, p. 21).

      (3)  Council Decision of 28 June 2007 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decisions 2006/379/EC and 2006/1008/EC (OJ 2007 L 169, p. 58).

      (4)  Council Decision of 20 December 2007 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2007/445/EC (OJ 2007 L 340, p. 100), as corrected.

      (5)  Council Decision of 15 July 2008 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2007/868/EC (OJ 2008 L 188, p. 21).

      (6)  Council Decision of 26 January 2009 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2008/583/EC (OJ 2009 L 23, p. 25).


title: Case C-252/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 2, Cádiz (Spain) lodged on 12 May 2017 — Moisés Vadillo González v Alestis Aerospace, S.L.

text:
               7.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 2, Cádiz (Spain) lodged on 12 May 2017 — Moisés Vadillo González v Alestis Aerospace, S.L.
   (Case C-252/17)
   (2017/C 256/05)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Social No 2, Cádiz

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Moisés Vadillo González

      Defendant: Alestis Aerospace, S.L.

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Directive 2010/18/EU (1) preclude an interpretation of Article 37.4 ET (leave of absence of an hour every day until the child reaches nine months of age) to the effect that, regardless of the sex of either parent, such leave is not be granted to the person applying for it if the other parent is unemployed?

               2.

               Does Article 3 of Directive 2006/54/EC, (2) which seeks to guarantee full equality between men and women in their working lives, preclude an interpretation of the said Article 37.4 ET to the effect that, if the male parent is working, he has no entitlement to such leave if his wife and fellow parent is unemployed?

      (1)  Council Directive 2010/18/EU of 8 March 2010 implementing the revised Framework Agreement on parental leave concluded by BUSINESSEUROPE, UEAPME, CEEP and ETUC and repealing Directive 96/34/EC

         OJ 2010 L 68, p. 13

      (2)  Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast)

         OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 28 February 2002 in Joined Cases T-227/99 and T-134/00: Kvaerner Warnow Werft GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (State aids — Shipbuilding — Former German Democratic Republic — Limits on capacity — Composition of the Commission — Commission Member given leave of absence — Election of Commission Members to the European Parliament)

text:
29.6.2002              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 156/17
(Third Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of J. Azizi,               2.    Declares that there is no longer need to adjudicate on the claim
President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts, V. Tiili, R.M. Moura                      for a declaration that the Commission failed to act;
Ramos and M. Jaeger, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 March 2002 in which it:               3.    Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay one
                                                                                half of the applicant’s costs.
1.    Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the application;
2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.
(1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.
                                                                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                        of 28 February 2002
                         of 7 March 2002                                   in Joined Cases T-227/99 and T-134/00: Kvaerner Warnow
                                                                           Werft GmbH v Commission of the European Communi-
in Case T-212/99: Intervet International BV v Commission                                                    ties (1)
               of the European Communities (1)
                                                                           (State aids — Shipbuilding — Former German Democratic
(Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 — Veterinary medicinal                        Republic — Limits on capacity — Composition of the
products — Application for the inclusion of ‘Altrenogest’ in               Commission — Commission Member given leave of absence
the list of substances for which a provisional maximum                     — Election of Commission Members to the European Parlia-
residue limit may be established — Opinion of the Committee                                                 ment)
for Veterinary Medicinal Products (CVMP) — Action for
annulment — Inadmissibility — Action for failure to act —
Adoption of a position putting an end to the inaction — No                                           (2002/C 156/32)
                        need to adjudicate)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                          (2002/C 156/31)
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           In Joined Cases T-227/99 and T-134/00: Kvaerner Warnow
                                                                           Werft GmbH, established in Rostock-Warnemünde (Germany),
                                                                           represented by M. Schütte, lawyer, with an address for service
In Case T-212/99, Intervet International BV, formerly Hoechst              in Luxembourg, v Commission of the European Communities
Roussel Vet GmbH, established in Boxmeer (Netherlands),                    (Agent: K.-D. Borchardt) — application for annulment of
represented by D. Waelbroek and D. Brinckman, lawyers, with                Commission Decision 1999/675/EC of 8 July 1999, as
an address for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the                  amended, and of Commission Decision 2000/336/EC of
European Communities (Agents: T. Christoforou, H. Stolvlbaek               15 February 2000 on State aid granted by the Federal Republic
and F. Ruggeri-Laderchi): Application for the annulment of an              of Germany to Kvaerner Warnow Werft GmbH (OJ 1999
alleged Commission decision rejecting an application by the                L 274, p. 23 and OJ 2000 L 120, p. 12, respectively) — the
applicant for the insertion of the substance ‘altrenogest’ in              Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Compo-
Annex III to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 of                        sition), composed of: P. Mengozzi, President, R. Garcı́a-
26 June 1990 laying down a Community procedure for                         Valdecasas, V. Tiili, R.M. Moura Ramos and J.D. Cooke, Judges;
the establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary                  D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin (OJ 1990                 judgment on 28 February 2002, in which it:
L 224, p. 1) and, in the alternative, for a declaration that the
Commission unlawfully failed to prepare a draft of measures
                                                                           1.    Annuls Commission Decision 1999/675/EC of 8 July 1999
to be taken with a view to such insertion and to initiate the
                                                                                on the State aid implemented by Germany in favour of Kvaerner
procedure laid down in Article 8 of that regulation. The Court
                                                                                Warnow Werft GmbH, as amended by Commission Decision
of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: R.M. Moura
                                                                                2000/416/EC of 29 March 2000 on State aid implemented
Ramos, President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung,
                                                                                by Germany in favour of Kvaerner Warnow Werft GmbH
Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 March 2002, in which it:
                                                                                (1999) and Commission Decision 2000/336/EC of 15 Febru-
                                                                                ary 2000 on State aid implemented by Germany in favour of
1.    Dismisses the claim for annulment as inadmissible;                         Kvaerner Warnow Werft GmbH;
 ---pagebreak--- C 156/18                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        29.6.2002
2.     Orders the Commission to pay the costs.                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 26 February 2002
(1) OJ C 6 of 8.1.2000 and C 211 of 22.7.2000.
                                                                          in Case T-169/00, Esedra SPRL v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
                                                                          (Public contract for the supply of services — Day nursery
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              management services — Principle of non-discrimination —
                                                                          Contract notice — Contract documents — Reasons for
                                                                               decision not to award contract — Misuse of powers)
                          of 6 March 2002
in Joined Cases T-92/00 and T-103/00, Territorio Histórico                                        (2002/C 156/34)
de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava and Others v
         Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(State aid — Concept of State aid — Tax measures —
Selective nature — Justification owing to the nature or
         scheme of the tax system — Misuse of powers)
                          (2002/C 156/33)
                                                                          In Case T-169/00: Esedra SPRL, established in Brussels
                                                                          (Belgium), represented by G. Vandersanden, E. Gillet and
                    (Language of the case: Spanish)                       L. Levi, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
                                                                          against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                                                                          initially by X. Lewis and L. Parpala, and, subsequently, H. van
                                                                          Lier and L. Parpala) — application first, for the suspension of
In Joined Cases T-92/00, Territorio Histórico de Álava —                operation of the Commission’s decision not to award to the
Diputación Foral de Álava, represented by A. Creus Carreras             applicant the public contract relating to invitation to tender
and B. Uriarte Valiente, lawyers, and T-103/00 Ramondı́n                  No 99/52/IX.D.1, notified to the applicant by letter of 31 May
SA, established in Logroño (Spain), Ramondı́n Cápsulas SA,              2000, and the Commission’s decision to award the contract to
established in Laguardia (Spain), represented by J. Lazcano-              a group of Italian companies represented by Centro Studi
Iturburu, lawyer, against Commission of the European Com-                 Antonio Manieri Srl, notified to the applicant by letter of
munities (Agents: F. Santaolalla, G. Rozet and G. Valero                  9 June 2000, and, second, for compensation for the damage
Jordana) — application for the annulment of Commission                    allegedly caused by those decisions — the Court of First
Decision 2000/795/EC of 22 December 1999 on the State aid                 Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of P. Lindh, President of
implemented by Spain for Ramondı́n SA and Ramondı́n                       the Chamber, R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and J.D. Cooke, Judges;
Cápsulas SA (OJ 2000 L 318, p. 36) — the Court of First                  B. Pastor, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judg-
Instance (Third Chamber, Extended Composition), composed                  ment on 26 February 2002, in which it:
of J. Azizi, President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts, V. Tiili,
R.M. Moura Ramos and M. Jaeger, Judges; J. Plingers, Adminis-
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 March
2002, in which it:                                                        1.    Dismisses the application.
1.     Dismisses the actions.                                             2.    Orders the applicant to pay its own costs and those of the
                                                                                Commission, including the costs incurred in the proceedings for
                                                                                interim measures.
2.     Orders the applicants to pay their own costs and also those
       incurred by the Commission.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 259 of 9.9.2000.
( 1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 28 September 2004 in Case T-310/00: MCI, Inc. v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Merger control — Action for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings — Powers of the Commission)

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/38

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 28 September 2004
   in Case T-310/00: MCI, Inc. v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Competition - Merger control - Action for annulment - Interest in bringing proceedings - Powers of the Commission)
   (2004/C 300/74)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case T-310/00: MCI, Inc., formerly MCI WorldCom, Inc. and then WorldCom, Inc., established in Ashburn, Virginia (United States of America), represented initially by K. Lasok QC, J.-Y. Art, lawyer, and B. Hartnett, barrister, and subsequently by K. Lasok QC, with an address for service in Luxembourg, supported by Federal Republic of Germany (Agents: W.-D. Plessing and B. Muttelsee-Schön), against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: initially P. Oliver, P. Hellström and L. Pignataro, and subsequently P. Oliver and P. Hellström, assisted by N. Khan, barrister, with an address for service in Luxembourg), supported by French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and F. Million, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for annulment of Commission Decision 2003/790/EC of 28 June 2000 declaring a concentration incompatible with the common market and the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.1741 – MCI WorldCom/Sprint) (OJ 2003 L 300, p. 1) — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, A.W.H. Meij and N.J. Forwood, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 September 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision 2003/790/EC of 28 June 2000 declaring a concentration incompatible with the common market and the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.1741 – MCI WorldCom/Sprint);

               2.

               Orders the Commission to bear, in addition to its own costs, those of MCI, Inc.;

               3.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.


title: Case C-215/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 24 April 2007 — Verlag Schawe GmbH v Sächsisches Druck- und Verlagshaus AG

text:
               7.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 24 April 2007 — Verlag Schawe GmbH v Sächsisches Druck- und Verlagshaus AG
   (Case C-215/07)
   (2007/C 155/23)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesgerichtshof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Verlag Schawe GmbH

      Defendant: Sächsisches Druck- und Verlagshaus AG
   Questions referred

               1.

               Do Article 7(1) and (5) and Article 9 of Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases (1) prohibit a legal provision of a Member State, according to which an official database which is published as a matter of general information for official purposes (in this instance: a systematic and complete collection of all calls for tender documents emanating from a German Land) does not benefit from sui generis protection under the directive?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative: is this also the case where the database is constructed not by a public body but by a private undertaking on its behalf, to which all bodies of this Land issuing calls for tender must directly submit their calls for tender documents for publication?

      (1)  OJ 1996 L 77, p. 20.


title: Case C-579/12 RX-II: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 September 2013 — European Commission v Guido Strack (Review of the judgment of the General Court in Case T-268/11 P — Civil service — Commission decision refusing to carry over paid annual leave not taken by an official during the reference period because of long term sick leave — Article 1e(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union — Article 4 of Annex V to those Regulations — Directive 2003/88/EC — Article 7 — Right to paid annual leave — Principle of the social law of the European Union — Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Effect on the unity and consistency of European Union law)

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/36

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 September 2013 — European Commission v Guido Strack
   (Case C-579/12 RX-II) (1)

   (Review of the judgment of the General Court in Case T-268/11 P - Civil service - Commission decision refusing to carry over paid annual leave not taken by an official during the reference period because of long term sick leave - Article 1e(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union - Article 4 of Annex V to those Regulations - Directive 2003/88/EC - Article 7 - Right to paid annual leave - Principle of the social law of the European Union - Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Effect on the unity and consistency of European Union law)
   2013/C 344/63
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission

      Other party to the proceedings: Guido Strack

      Re:

   Review of the judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2012 in Case T-268/11 P Commission v Strack

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that the judgment of the General Court of the European Union (Appeal Chamber) of 8 November 2012 in Case T-268/11 P Commission v Strack adversely affects the unity and consistency of European Union law inasmuch as the General Court, as an appeal court, disregarding the right to paid annual leave as a principle of the social law of the European Union also expressly affirmed by Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and, in particular, referred to by Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, as interpreted by the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union:

                           —

                           interpreted Article 1e(2) of the Staff Regulations to the effect that it does not include the requirements relating to the organisation of working time contained in Directive 2003/88, in particular, paid annual leave, and

                           —

                           consequently, interpreted Article 4 of Annex V to those regulations as implying that the right to carry over annual leave exceeding the limit laid down in that provision may be granted only where the official has been unable to take leave for reasons connected with his activity as an official and the duties he has thus been required to perform.

               2.

               Sets aside that judgment of the General Court of the European Union.

               3.

               Dismisses the appeal brought by the European Commission against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal of 15 March 2011 in Case F-120/07 Strack v Commission.

               4.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs which Mr Strack incurred both in the review proceedings and in the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union.

               5.

               Declares that the Council of the European Union and the European Commission shall bear their own costs incurred in the review proceedings.

               6.

               Declares that the European Commission shall bear its own costs incurred in the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union.

      (1)  OJ C 71, 9.3.2013.


title: Case C-563/14 P: Appeal brought on 5 December 2014 by Dansk Automat Brancheforening against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 26 September 2014 in Case T-601/11 Dansk Automat Brancheforening v European Commission

text:
               9.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/32

         Appeal brought on 5 December 2014 by Dansk Automat Brancheforening against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 26 September 2014 in Case T-601/11 Dansk Automat Brancheforening v European Commission
   (Case C-563/14 P)
   (2015/C 046/38)
   Language of the case: Danish

      Parties

      Appellants: Dansk Automat Brancheforening (represented by: K. Dyekjær, T. Høg and J. Flodgaard, advokater)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of Denmark, Republic of Malta, Betfair Group plc, Betfair International Ltd, European Gaming and Betting Association (EGBA)

      Form of order sought

               1.

               Set aside the General Court’s judgment of 26 September 2014 in Case T-601/11;

               2.

               Hold that the action in Case T-601/11 is admissible;

               3.

               Refer the case back to the General Court so that the applicant at first instance (now appellant) may have its pleas in law heard on their merits;

               4.

               Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice — In the alternative in relation to form of order 4: order the interveners to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The main ground of appeal is that the General Court was incorrect in dismissing the case brought by the appellant on the ground that the General Court misinterpreted and/or misapplied of the criteria laid down in Article 263(4) TFEU for standing to bring proceedings against a decision taken by the Commission pursuant to Article 107(3)(c) TFEU.
   In particular, the General court misapplied the expression ‘individual concern’ in Article 263(4) TFEU because it failed to interpret it in accordance with the Court of Justice’s case-law and therefore misapplied it. In that connection the General Court: (1) found, incorrectly, that the fact that the measure which has an adverse effect on the individual members of the applicant association also affects other does not preclude those members from being individually concerned; (2) found, incorrectly, that only the relevant members had claimed to be in competition with the recipients of the aid; and (3) thereby failed, incorrectly, to accord weight to the specific calculations which the appellants had submitted showing that the aid would inevitably have an adverse effect on their market position; and (4) in addition to the error referred to in (1), incorrectly failed to see that the measure having an adverse effect is not the same for all operators; (5) incorrectly assumed that the appellants must provide proof of loss of income which has already occurred in order to have standing to bring proceedings; (6) incorrectly dismissed claims of adverse effect on the basis of other, undocumented causes of the adverse effect; and (7) ruled out the possibility of easing the requirements for having standing on the ground that the Commission’s decision to allow the aid under Article 107(3)(c) had not been dealt with administratively on its merits.
   Furthermore, the General Court: (8) misapplied the expression ‘regulatory act which does not entail implementing measures’ in finding that the decision contested in those proceedings presupposes implementing measures; and (9) incorrectly ordered the applicants to pay the interveners’ costs.


title: Case C-148/07: Action brought on 14 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Hungary

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/34

         Action brought on 14 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Hungary
   (Case C-148/07)
   (2007/C 95/67)
   Language of the case: Hungarian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Bottka and K. Mojzesowicz, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Hungary
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to eliminate the restrictions to the provision of cable television services imposed by Article 115(4) of Law I of 1996 on Radio and Television, the Republic of Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Commission Directive 2002/77/EC of 16 September 2002 on competition in the markets for electronic communications networks and services (1);

               —

               order Republic of Hungary to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposing the directive into national law expired on 30 April 2004.
   According to the Commission, the Republic of Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(3) of Directive 2002/77/EC by restricting the right of cable television service providers to broadcast programmes so that in territorial coverage is no more than one third of the population.

      (1)  OJ 2002 L 249, p. 21.


title: Case T-393/13: Order of the General Court of 14 April 2015 — SolarWorld and Solsonica v Commission (Dumping — Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (cells and wafers) originating in or consigned from China — Provisional anti-dumping duty)

text:
               22.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/32

         Order of the General Court of 14 April 2015 — SolarWorld and Solsonica v Commission
   (Case T-393/13) (1)

   ((Dumping - Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (cells and wafers) originating in or consigned from China - Provisional anti-dumping duty))
   (2015/C 205/42)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: SolarWorld AG (Bonn, Germany) and Solsonica SpA (Cittaducale, Italy), (represented by: L. Ruessmann, lawyer, and J. Beck, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application, first, for annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) No 513/2013 of 4 June 2013 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells and wafers) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China and amending Regulation (EU) No 182/2013 making these imports originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China subject to registration (OJ 2013 L 152, p. 5), to the extent that the rate of those provisional duties was established, for the period from 6 June to 5 August 2013, at a level which eliminates neither the dumping nor the loss, secondly, an application for an order that the customs authorities of the Member States be directed to apply the full anti-dumping duty rates as from 6 June 2013 and, thirdly, an action in non-contractual liability against the Commission for the loss that the applicants allegedly suffered due to the application, for the period from 6 June to 5 August 2013, of the provisional anti-dumping duties at the rate introduced by Regulation No 513/2013.

      Operative part of the order

               1)

               The second head of claim of SolarWorld AG and Solsonica SpA, seeking an order that the customs authorities of the Member States be directed to apply the anti-dumping duty rates set out in Article 1(2)(ii) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 513/2013 of 4 June 2013 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells and wafers) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China and amending Regulation (EU) No 182/2013 making these imports originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China subject to registration, as from 6 June 2013, is manifestly inadmissible.

               2)

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action for annulment of Regulation No 513/2013, nor on the action for damages.

               3)

               SolarWorld and Solsonica shall bear their own costs, as well as one-third of the costs of the European Commission. The latter shall bear the remainder of its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.


title: Case T-261/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 15 January 2009 — Commission v Banca di Roma

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/53

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 15 January 2009 — Commission v Banca di Roma
   (Case T-261/07) (1)

   (2009/C 69/117)

      Language of the case: Italian

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

      (1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.


title: Case C-367/10 P: Appeal brought on 22 July 2010 by EMC Development AB against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 12 May 2010 in Case T-432/05: EMC Development AB v European Commission

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/20

      Appeal brought on 22 July 2010 by EMC Development AB against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 12 May 2010 in Case T-432/05: EMC Development AB v European Commission
      (Case C-367/10 P)
      ()
      (2010/C 288/33)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: EMC Development AB (represented by: W.-N. Schelp, avocat)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The appellant claims that the Court should:

                  (i)

                  annul the Commission's Decision dated 28.09.05;

                  (ii)

                  in the alternative to (i), set aside the Judgment under appeal in whole or in part and refer the case back to the General Court for an adjudication on the substance, in the light of the guidance which this Court may provide to it;

                  (iii)

                  in any event, Order the Commission to pay the costs of the Applicant incurred before the General Court and the Court of Justice.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The applicant submits that the General Court, in adopting the Commission's positions vis à vis the Guidelines, required the appellant to prove matters of fact and placed an unassailable burden upon the appellant. In so doing it has sought to require proof of the Standard's effects without considering the wider and more fundamental issues of its nature. The applicant considers that this constitutes an error of law and that the order of procedure of the tests as between the nature and the effects of the Standard have been reversed.


title: Case F-80/06: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 25 January 2008 — Duyster v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Parental leave — Application to withdraw parental leave — Lis pendens — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               29.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/35

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 25 January 2008 — Duyster v Commission
   (Case F-80/06) (1)

   (Civil Service - Officials - Parental leave - Application to withdraw parental leave - Lis pendens - Manifest inadmissibility)
   (2008/C 79/66)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Tineke Duyster (Oetrange, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg) (represented by: W. van den Muijsenbergh, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Krämer, acting as Agent, and M. van der Woude, lawyer)
   Re:
   Annulment of the Appointing Authority's decision of 22 December 2005 declaring inadmissible the applicant's request of 6 December 2005 concerning the Appointing Authority's decision of 17 November 2005 on the date that the applicant's parental leave started
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Each party is ordered to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 261, 28.10.2006, p. 33.


title: Case T-291/11: Action brought on 9 June 2011 — Portovesme v Commission

text:
               6.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/36

         Action brought on 9 June 2011 — Portovesme v Commission
   (Case T-291/11)
   2011/C 232/63
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Portovesme Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: F. Ciulli, G. Dore, M. Liberati and A. Vinci, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               (1)

               Pursuant to Article 267 TFEU, declare that the decision of the European Commission of 23 February 2011 relating to State aid No C 38/B/2004 (ex NN 58/2004) and No C 13/2006 (ex N 587/2005) implemented by Italy in favour of, inter alia, the applicant is unlawful and, accordingly, annul the decision in its entirety or in so far as is reasonable;

               (2)

               in the alternative and only in the unlikely event that the form of order sought in paragraph 1 is not granted, declare that the decision in the provision ordering that the aid be recovered is unlawful on the basis that it is contrary to the general principle of the protection of legitimate expectations;

               (3)

               order the defendant to pay the costs and that the right be reserved to bring a separate action for damages.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on 11 pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty and the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and infringement of Articles 4, 7, 10 and 14 of Regulation 659/1999. (1)

               Arguments in support of the plea: the decision was adopted almost six and a half years after the formal investigation procedure had been initiated.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an incorrect and/or incomplete account of the legal and regulatory reference framework and consequent breach of the duty of due diligence and impartiality.
               Arguments in support of the plea: the decision declaring the aid incompatible is based on an incorrect and incomplete account of the matters of fact and law and consequently infringes of the duty of due diligence and impartiality which should have informed the Commission’s conduct.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging unequal treatment of Portovesme and Alcoa Trasformazioni, which was unreasonable.
               Arguments in support of the plea: in another decision relating to another company, the Commission found to be lawful the same scheme that is now declared incompatible with the common market as regards the applicant, thus giving rise to unreasonable unequal treatment as between the two companies.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, relating to the existence of aid for the purpose of Article 107(1) TFEU.
               Arguments in support of the plea: through the preferential tariff granted to the applicant, the Italian State intervened in order to eliminate an unjustified situation which placed certain parties at a disadvantage and to reduce the excessive costs relating to electricity consumption due to the poor connections between the islands network and the national mainland network. Consequently, the requirements that the measure should confer an economic advantage and be selective were not satisfied. Moreover, the intervention of the Cassa Conguaglio [Equalisation Fund for the Electricity Sector] was purely incidental and the measure in question cannot therefore be classified as constituting State resources. Lastly, that measure could not have had any effect on trade between Member States because, in the zinc market, there are no intra-Community trade flows.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the assumptions on which the contested decision was based are incorrect.
               Arguments in support of the plea: the decision is based on the incorrect assumption that the aid would have created an imbalance on the energy market, whereas the market affected by the scheme is the market for the production of heavy metals.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, relating to the classification of the aid as new aid or existing aid.
               Arguments in support of the plea: the preferential tariff in question should have been classified as existing aid, already found to be compatible with the common market by an earlier Commission decision.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, relating to the compatibility of the aid with the common market.
               Arguments in support of the plea: the Commission failed to take account of the fact that the measure in question contributed to ensuring the development of sustainable employment in the area concerned.

               8.

               Eighth plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 2, 3, 5 and 12 TEC and misapplication of the principles of equality and proportionality in the actions of the Community institutions.
               Arguments in support of the plea: the contested decision unlawfully rejected an aid scheme designed to eliminate a situation which had given rise to serious discrimination between companies producing heavy metals in Italy, on the one hand, and in Europe on the other.

               9.

               Ninth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 174 TFEU and Annex D to Declaration No 30 on island regions.
               Arguments in support of the plea: the Commission failed to take account of the structural and market deficit arising as a result of the island regions.

               10.

               Tenth plea in law, alleging infringement of the rules governing procedure (Article 107(3)(a), (b) and (c) TFEU) and misapplication of the 1998 Guidelines on national regional aid and misapplication of the 2007-2013 Guidelines.
               Arguments in support of the plea: the Commission failed to comply with its obligation to carry out a correct assessment as to the compatibility of the aid.

               11.

               Eleventh plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.
               Arguments in support of the plea: the Commission failed to take account both of the fact that the scheme from which the applicant benefited had already been declared compatible with the common market by an earlier decision and that no concerns were raised relation to that scheme for a period of 15 years following the decision at issue, factors which are therefore relevant with regard to the applicant’s legitimate expectations.

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


title: Case C-211/07: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Incorrect transposition — Directive 84/5/EEC — Article 1(4) — Compulsory insurance for civil liability in respect of motor vehicles — Conditions for the exclusion from compensation of passengers in an uninsured vehicle)

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/8

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland
   (Case C-211/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Incorrect transposition - Directive 84/5/EEC - Article 1(4) - Compulsory insurance for civil liability in respect of motor vehicles - Conditions for the exclusion from compensation of passengers in an uninsured vehicle)
   (2008/C 92/13)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: N. Yerrell, Agent)

      Defendant: Ireland (represented by: D.J. O'Hagan, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 1(4) of Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1984 L 8, p. 17) — Compensation in respect of damage caused by inadequately insured vehicles — Exclusion conditions going beyond those provided for by the directive
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               Declares that, by maintaining in force clauses 5.2 and 5.3 of the Motor Insurance Agreement of 31 March 2004 between the Minister for Transport and the Motor Insurers' Bureau of Ireland, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the third subparagraph of Article 1(4) of Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles.

               2)

               Orders Ireland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 155, 7.7.2007.


title: Case C-257/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, by order of that court of 28 April 2000, in the case of Nani Givane and others against the Secretary of State for the Home Department

text:
C 247/24               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       26.8.2000
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Immigration                     Action brought on 28 June 2000 by the Commission of
Appeal Tribunal, by order of that court of 28 April 2000,                  the European Communities against the French Republic
in the case of Nani Givane and others against the Secretary
               of State for the Home Department
                                                                                (Case C-258/00)
                         (Case C-257/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 247/36)
                         (2000/C 247/35)
                                                                          An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    Court of Justice of the European Communities on 28 June
European Communities by an order of the Immigration Appeal                2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
Tribunal of 28 April 2000, which was received at the Court                represented by Michel Nolin, of its Legal Service, with an
Registry on 26 June 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case            address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
of Nani Givane and others against the Secretary of State for              Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
the Home Department, on the following questions:                          Kirchberg.
1.    Whether Article 3(2) of Regulation 1251/70 (1) requires
                                                                          The Commission of the European Communities claims that
      that two-year period of continuous residence to be
                                                                          the Court should:
      established in the period immediately prior to a worker’s
      death, or whether it may be established by a period of
      continuous residence which occurs at an earlier point in            —     declare that, by failing to take appropriate steps to identify
      the worker’s life;                                                        waters affected by pollution and, in consequence, to
                                                                                designate the corresponding vulnerable zones, as pro-
2.    If the said two year period is not required to be established             vided for by Article 3 and Annex I to Directive 91/676/
      immediately prior to the worker’s death, then, once such                  EEC (1), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obli-
      a two year period of residence has been established by                    gations under that directive;
      the worker, can the benefit of the accrued rights deriving
      from that period be retained after periods of absence               —     order the French Republic to pay the costs.
      from the host EU state in excess of the three months
      specified in Article 4(1) (which have the effect of breaking
      the period of continuous residence in the host State in
      question);                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
3.    If the answer to question 2 is in the affirmative, whether
      the consequential right to retain the benefit of past               Incomplete identification of waters which are or could be
      periods of continuous residence, despite subsequent                 affected by pollution, resulting in an incomplete designation
      breaks in residence, is subject to any limitations;                 of vulnerable zones.
4.    If the answer to question 3 is in the affirmative, what             —     Eutrophication has not been taken into account in a
      those limitations are; and what factors must be considered                precise fashion. By limiting the identification of eutrophic
      by the national court in seeking to establish whether                     waters pursuant to Directive 91/676/EEC to circum-
      breaks in the continuity of residence have broken the                     stances in which nitrogen causing pollution by nitrates
      entitlement to rely on past periods of residence.                         constitutes the ‘key factor’ giving rise to eutrophication,
                                                                                that is to say, the factor in respect of which a deficit will
5.    Whether the benefit of Article 3(2) may be claimed by                     be the first thing to become apparent (compared to
      the deceased worker’s family members, in circumstances                    phosphorus), and thus by specifically limiting it to coastal
      in which the worker’s 10-month period of absence                          waters and stagnant, brackish shallow waters, and by
      represents less than a third of the period of continuous                  contrariwise excluding such identification where the key
      residence prior to the absence, and less than a fifth of the              factor is the presence of phosphorus rather than nitrogen,
      total time spent by the worker in the host state prior to                 the circular issued by the Minister for the Environment
      his death.                                                                on 5 November 1992 concerning the initial designation
                                                                                of vulnerable zones gives the competent authorities
                                                                                instructions which do not correspond to a proper appli-
                                                                                cation of Article 3 and Annex I to the directive. Although,
(1) Regulation (EEC) No 1251/70 of the Commission of 29 June                    in consequence of the judgment delivered by the Court
    1970 on the right of workers to remain in the territory of a
    Member State after having been employed in that State (OJ L 142,
                                                                                in Case C-293/97 (2), the French authorities expressly
    30.6.1970, p. 24[SE SER1 70 (II) p. 402]).                                  acknowledged the validity of the interpretation advocated
                                                                                by the Commission, that circular has not been amended
                                                                                or cancelled. The Commission states that, on a proper
                                                                                application of the directive, the Seine bay should have
                                                                                been identified as eutrophic.


title: Case C-576/13: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 December 2014  — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 49 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Dock-work undertakings — Management of workers for the provision of cargo-handling services — Prohibition on using workers on the employment market)

text:
               9.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/14

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 December 2014 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-576/13) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 49 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Dock-work undertakings - Management of workers for the provision of cargo-handling services - Prohibition on using workers on the employment market))
   (2015/C 046/18)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Nicolae and S. Pardo Quintillán, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, Agent)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by obliging undertakings of other Member States wishing to exercise the activity of cargo-handling in Spanish ports of general interest, first, to register with the Dockers’ Management Public Limited Liability Company (‘Sociedad Anónima de Gestion de Estibadores Portuarios’) and, as appropriate, to hold shares in that company and, secondly, to employ as a priority workers provided by that company, including a minimum number on permanent contracts, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 TFEU;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.


title: Case C-433/13: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 September 2015 — European Commission v Slovak Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Article 7 — Article 21 — Sickness benefit — Care allowance, assistance allowance and compensatory allowance for extra costs — Residence requirement)

text:
               9.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/2

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 September 2015 — European Commission v Slovak Republic
   (Case C-433/13) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Article 7 - Article 21 - Sickness benefit - Care allowance, assistance allowance and compensatory allowance for extra costs - Residence requirement))
   (2015/C 371/03)
   Language of the case: Slovak

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Tokár, D. Martin and F. Schatz, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Slovak Republic (represented by: B. Ricziová, acting as Agent)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 336, 16.11.2013.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 September 1999 in Case C-64/98 P: Odette Nicos Petrides Co. Inc. v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal - Action for compensation - Common organisation of the market in raw tobacco - Commission decisions rejecting bids in tendering procedures in respect of tobacco held by intervention agencies - Inadequate statement of reasons, principles of proportionality, equal treatment and the right to a fair hearing)

text:
4.12.1999                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 352/5
1. Where a Member State has not transposed Council Directive                17 December 1997 in Case T-152/95 Petrides v Commission
     85/73/EEC of 29 January 1985 on the financing of health                [1997] ECR II-2427, seeking to have that judgment set aside,
     inspections and controls of fresh meat and poultrymeat, as             the other party to the proceedings being Commission of the
     amended by Council Directive 93/118/EC of 22 December                  European Communities (Agent: Gérard Berscheid) — the Court
     1993, into national law within the period prescribed, individuals      (Third Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of
     cannot oppose the collection of fees higher than the levers of the     the Chamber, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rapporteur) and
     standard amounts fixed in point 1 of Chapter I of the Annex to         C. Gulmann, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate Gen-
     the Directive, where those fees do not exceed the actual costs.        eral; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 September
                                                                            1999, in which it:
2. A Member State may exercise the option available under
     point 4(b) of Chapter I of the Annex to Directive 85/73, as            1. Dismisses the appeal;
     amended by Directive 93/118, of collecting a special fee
                                                                            2. Orders Odette Nicos Petrides Co. Inc. to pay the costs.
     exceeding the level of the standard fees fixed in point 1 of
     Chapter I, provided only that the special fee does not exceed the
     actual costs incurred, no further conditions being imposed.            (1) OJ C 151 of 16.5.1998.
3. In cases where a Member State has delegated to local authorities
     the collection of fees relating to health inspections and controls
     of fresh meat, Article 2(3) of Directive 85/73, as amended by
     Directive 93/118, authorises it to collect an amount higher than
     Community fee levels so long as it does not exceed the actual                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
     costs of inspection incurred by the competent local authority.
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
( 1) OJ C 387 of 20.12.1997. OJ C 7 of 10.1.1998.
                                                                                of 9 September 1999
                                                                            in Case C-108/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                            the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Campania):
                                                                            RI.SAN Srl v Comune di Ischia, Italia Lavoro SpA,
                                                                                formerly GEPI SpA, Ischia Ambiente SpA (1)
                                                                            (Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services —
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                             Organisation of urban waste collection service)
                           (Third Chamber)                                                            (1999/C 352/10)
                        of 9 September 1999                                                     (Language of the case: Italian)
in Case C-64/98 P: Odette Nicos Petrides Co. Inc. v                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
        Commission of the European Communities (1)                                             in the European Court Reports)
(Appeal — Action for compensation — Common organis-                         In Case C-108/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
ation of the market in raw tobacco — Commission decisions                   the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunale
rejecting bids in tendering procedures in respect of tobacco                Amministrativo Regionale della Campania, Italy, for a prelimi-
held by intervention agencies — Inadequate statement of                     nary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
reasons, principles of proportionality, equal treatment and                 between RI.SAN Srl and Comune di Ischia, Italia Lavoro
                      the right to a fair hearing)                          SpA, formerly GEPI SpA, Ischia Ambiente SpA — on the
                                                                            interpretation of Articles 55 and 90(2) of the EC Treaty (now
                                                                            Articles 45 EC and 86(2) EC) — the Court (Fifth Chamber),
                            (1999/C 352/09)                                 composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,
                                                                            P. Jann (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward and L. Se-
                                                                            vón, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; H. von Holstein,
                      (Language of the case: French)                        Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                            9 September 1999, in which it has ruled:
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      Article 55 of the EC Treaty (now Article 45 EC) does not apply in a
                     in the European Court Reports)                         situation such as that in the main proceedings in which all the facts
                                                                            are confined to within a single Member State and which does not
                                                                            therefore have any connecting link with one of the situations envisaged
In Case C-64/98 P: Odette Nicos Petrides Co. Inc., established              by Community law in the area of the freedom of movement for
in Kavala (Greece), represented by Nikolaos Vassilakakis,                   persons and freedom to provide services.
Evangelos Vassilakakis, of the Thessaloniki Bar, and Evangelia
Pallioudi, of the Kavala Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Carlos Zeyen, 67 Rue                          (1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.
Ermesinde — appeal against the judgment of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber) of


title: Case T-189/00: Action brought on 18 July 2000 by "Invest" Import und Export GmbH and Invest Commerce against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 285/16              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        7.10.2000
—    The Commission failed to examine the facts diligently by           Pleas in law and main arguments
     finding that the purported capacity reduction would
     have an effect on competition which would offset the
     detrimental effects of the State aid. The alleged ‘reduction’      The applicants are import/export undertakings established
     of capacity, as described in the contested decision, will          within the Community. Their parent company is Invest-Import
     have no impact on the competitiveness of Delon and will            AG, established in Belgrade. By the contested decision, the
     lead, on the contrary, to a de facto increase in capacity;         applicants have been placed on a list of undertakings which
                                                                        are ‘deemed to be owned or controlled by the Government of
                                                                        the FRY [Federal Republic of Yugoslavia] or the Government
—    The aid in question was not accompanied by real and                of the Republic of Serbia’ (Article 2(2) of Council Regulation
     effective reductions in capacity as provided for in the            (EC) No 1294/1999 (1)). As a result of this, in accordance with
     Code on Aid to the Synthetic Fibres Industry (1) as well as        Article 3(1) of the regulation, the applicants’ accounts in
     in Article 87 EC.                                                  Germany and France are frozen.
                                                                        The applicants complain, first of all, that the contested
                                                                        regulation is contrary to Regulation No 1294/1999. They
(1) OJ 1996 C 94, p. 11.                                                maintain that the Commission has committed an error of law
                                                                        in subsuming the applicants under those companies and
                                                                        entities which, via their parent companies, are controlled by
                                                                        the Government or socially owned. On the contrary, the
                                                                        parent company of the applicants is privately owned by the
                                                                        employees of the undertaking.
                                                                        In addition, the applicants raise the objection, in accordance
                                                                        with Article 241 EC, that Regulation No 1294/1999, in the
                                                                        version contained in Regulation No 723/2000, is illegal,
                                                                        inasmuch as their parent company is wrongly treated by those
Action brought on 18 July 2000 by ‘Invest’ Import                       legal instruments as being ‘socially-owned’.
und Export GmbH and Invest Commerce against the
        Commission of the European Communities
                                                                        The applicants further plead infringement of their rights of
                                                                        defence and violation of the principle of proportionality.
                         (Case T-189/00)                                Lastly, they claim that the contested regulation contains an
                                                                        insufficient statement of reasons.
                         (2000/C 285/29)
                                                                        (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1294/1999 of 15 June 1999 concern-
                                                                            ing a freeze of funds and a ban on investment in relation to the
                                                                            Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) and repealing Regulations
                 (Language of the case: German)                             (EC) No 1295/98 and (EC) No 1607/98 (OJ 1999 L 153, p. 63),
                                                                            in the version contained in Council Regulation (EC) No 723/2000
                                                                            of 6 April 2000 (OJ 2000 L 86, p. 1).
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 18 July 2000 by ‘Invest’ Import
und Export GmbH, of Neuss (Federal Republic of Germany),
and Invest Commerce, of Paris, represented by Rolf Wägen-
baur, of Graf von Westphalen Fritze & Modest, Brussels.
                                                                        Action brought on 21 July 2000 by the Regione Siciliana
The applicants claim that the Court should:                               against the Commission of the European Communities
—    annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 1147/2000 of                                             (Case T-190/00)
     29 May 2000 amending Annex II to Council Regulation
     (EC) No 1294/1999 concerning a freeze of funds and a
     ban on investment in relation to the Federal Republic of                                     (2000/C 285/30)
     Yugoslavia, in so far as it amends Annex II to Regulation
     No 1294/1999 so as to include the second applicant
     under the heading ‘France’ and the first applicant under                               (Language of the case: Italian)
     the heading ‘Germany’;
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
—    order the defendant to pay the costs.                              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the


title: Case T-151/08: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 June 2009 — Guedes — Indústria e Comércio v OHIM — Espai Rural de Gallecs (Gallecs) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark Gallecs — Earlier national and Community figurative marks GALLO, GALLO AZEITE NOVO, GALLO AZEITE — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Lack of similarity between the signs — Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/49

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 June 2009 — Guedes — Indústria e Comércio v OHIM — Espai Rural de Gallecs (Gallecs)
   (Case T-151/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark Gallecs - Earlier national and Community figurative marks GALLO, GALLO AZEITE NOVO, GALLO AZEITE - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Lack of similarity between the signs - Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2009/C 180/91
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Victor Guedes — Indústria e Comércio SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: B. Braga da Cruz, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Consorci de l’Espai Rural de Gallecs (Gallecs, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 January 2008 (Case R 986/2007-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Victor Guedes — Indústria e Comércio SA and Consorci de l’Espai Rural de Gallecs.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Victor Guedes — Indústria e Comércio SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 5.7.2008.