title: Case F-161/12: Action brought on 28 December 2012 — ZZ v ECDC

text:
               23.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/27

         Action brought on 28 December 2012 — ZZ v ECDC
   (Case F-161/12)
   2013/C 55/47
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: V. Kolias, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Center for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   To seek compensation for the non-material damage that the applicant would have suffered due to his dismissal.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Order to pay the sum of at least 118 500 euros in compensation of non-material damage;

               —

               order ECDC to pay all costs.


title: Case T-238/11 P: Order of the General Court of 8 July 2013 — Marcuccio vCommission (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Invalidity allowance — Payment of arrears — Default interest due — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/31

         Order of the General Court of 8 July 2013 — Marcuccio vCommission
   (Case T-238/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Invalidity allowance - Payment of arrears - Default interest due - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
   2013/C 252/50
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italie) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Other party in the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re

   Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 15 February 2011 in Case F-81/09 Marcuccio v Commission (not published in the ECR) seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Luigi Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in the appeal proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 186, 25.6.2011.


title: Case T-250/14: Action brought on 22 April 2014 — EEB v Commission

text:
               24.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/30

         Action brought on 22 April 2014 — EEB v Commission
   (Case T-250/14)
   2014/C 194/39
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Environmental Bureau (EEB) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: C. Stothers, Solicitor, M. Van Kerckhove and C. Simphal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the implied decision of the European Commission of 13 February 2014 deemed under Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) as a negative reply refusing to release complete and unredacted copies of correspondence with two Member States regarding their proposed Transitional National Plans (TNPs), exempting certain combustion plants from new emission limits between 2016 and 2020;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the defendant has unlawfully relied on Article 4(2) first indent of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 in a case where this is specifically precluded by Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 (2).

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant has unlawfully failed to interpret the exceptions of Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 in a restrictive way as required by Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 and Article 4(4) of the Aarhus Convention.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant has unlawfully consulted third parties under Article 4(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 in a case where it is clear that the document should have been disclosed, and unlawfully relied on this consultation to extend its time to respond.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant has unlawfully failed to consider which parts of a document are covered by any exception and release the remainder under Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

               5.

               Fifth plea in laws, alleging that by delaying access, the defendant has unlawfully failed to provide early and effective opportunities for the public to participate during the preparation, modification and review of the TNPs when all options are still open as required by Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43)

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13)


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg by order of that court of 21 September 1995 in the case of Krüger GmbH & Co. KG v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Case C-334/95)

text:
9 . 12 . 95           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      No C 333/ 11
30 October 1995 ( Case C-342/95 ) respectively, for a                 6 . Is the second paragraph of Article 177 of the EC Treaty
preliminary ruling in criminal proceedings against Giuseppe                 to be interpreted as precluding, in cases such as this, the
Piccolo ( Case C-331 /95 ), Mario Corbo and Others ( Case                   grant by the Finance Court of leave to appeal pursuant
C-332/95 ) and Miranda Viola ( Case C-342/95 ). The                         to the second sentence of paragraph 128 ( 3 ) of the
questions referred by the Pretura Circondariale di Roma —                   Finanzgerichtsordnung ( Code of Procedure before
Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli to the Court of Justice for a                  the Finance Court) read in conjunction with
preliminary ruling are identical with those in Case                         paragraph 115 ( 2 ) ( 1 ) thereof?
C-187/95 C ).
                                                                      ( 1 ) OJ, English Special Edition 1968 ( I ), p. 176 .
(') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 , p . 14 .                            ( 2 ) OJ No L 41 , 18 . 2 . 1992 , p . 9 .
                                                                      ( 3 ) OJ No L 302 , 19 . 10 . 1992 , p . 1 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
Hamburg by order of that court of 21 September 1995 in                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof
the case of Kriiger GmbH & Co. KG v. Hauptzollamt                     by order of that court of 12 September 1995 in the case of
                        Hamburg-Jonas                                         Wiener S.I. GmbH v. Hauptzollamt Emmerich
                       ( Case C-334/95 )                                                           Case C-338/95 )
                          ( 95/C 333/21 )                                                          ( 95/C 333/22 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht                    European Communities by order of the Seventh Chamber
Hamburg ( Finance Court, Hamburg) of 21 September                     of the Bundesfinanzhof ( Federal Finance Court ) of
1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on                    12 September 1995 , which was received at the Court
23 October 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of             Registry on 26 October 1 995 , for a preliminary ruling in the
Kriiger GmbH & Co . KG v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas                  case of Wiener S.I. GmbH v. Hauptzollamt Emmerich on the
( Principal Customs Office , Hamburg-Jonas ) on the                   following question:
following questions:
                                                                      Is the term 'nightdresses' within the meaning of tariff
1 . Does Regulation ( EEC ) No 804/68 ( ] ), read in                  heading 60.04 of the 1985 Common Customs Tariff,
     conjunction with the Annex thereto, as amended by                specifically tarif subheading 60.04 B IV b 2 bb, to be
     Regulation ( EEC ) No 374/92 (2 ), infringe the second           interpreted as covering exclusively 'other' under garments
     subparagraph of Article 40 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty, and is it     which, in view of their characteristics, are clearly intended
     consequently invalid, inasmuch as it does not provide            only to be worn as night wear, or does it also cover products
     for the grant of an export refund for milk and/or milk           which, on the basis of their appearance, are intended mainly,
     products contained in edible preparations falling                but not exclusively, to be worn in bed ?
     within Combined Nomenclature code No 2101 10
     and produced with a basis of extracts, essences or
     concentrates of coffee ?
2 . Does a breach of the prohibition of discrimination                Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep
     preclude the recovery of an export refund granted in             te Antwerpen by judgment/order of that court of
     respect of milk and/or milk products contained in edible         25 October 1995 in the case of Peter Schepens v. Belgian
     preparations falling within Combined Nomenclature                                                   State
     code No 2101 10 and produced with a basis of extracts                                       ( Case C-340/95 )
     of coffee ?
                                                                                ( 95/C 333/23 )
3 . Is Article 244 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2913/92 ( 3 ) ( the
     Customs Code ) applicable to the suspension of                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     implementation of decisions ordering the recovery of an          European Communities by a judgment of the Hof van
     export refund which has been granted ?                           Beroep ( Court of Appeal ) in Antwerp of 25 October 1995 ,
                                                                      which as received at the Court Registry on 30 October 1995 ,
4 . If the answer to question 3 is in the affirmative : in cases      for a preliminary ruling in the case of Peter Schepens v.
     in which there exists doubt as to the validity of the            Belgian State on the following questions :
     Community legislation on which the decision is based, is
     the suspension of implementation to be determined in              1 . Do Articles 18 ( 4 ) and 27 of the Sixth Council Directive
     accordance with Article 244 of the Customs Code or in                  of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of
     accordance with which other criteria ?                                 the Member States relating to turnover taxes (VAT
                                                                            Directive 77/388/EEC ) (') have direct effect in the
5 . If the answer to question 3 is in the negative: in cases in             national legal systems of the Member States and thus in
     which there exists doubt as to the validity of the                     Belgian law ?
     Community legislation on which the decision is based,
     what are the criteria according to which the suspension          2 . If so, does Article 18 (4 ) of the Directive preclude a
     of implementation falls to be determined ?                             Member State from refusing to refund to a taxable


title: Case T-356/09: Action brought on 16 September 2009 — Commission v Association Fédération Club B2A

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/78

         Action brought on 16 September 2009 — Commission v Association Fédération Club B2A
   (Case T-356/09)
   2009/C 267/139
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (Étupes, France) (represented by: A.-M. Rouchaud-Joët and N. Bambara, acting as Agents, and E. Bouttier, lawyer)

      Defendant: Association Fédération Club B2A

      Form of order sought

               —

               order the Fédération, represented by its President, to pay to the applicant the amount of … euros … corresponding to the principal sum of EUR 62 500 and the sum of … euros … in late-payment interest falling due on …;

               —

               order the Fédération to pay the sum of EUR 7 000 in order to cover the costs incurred by the Commission in recovering its debt;

               —

               order the Fédération to pay the costs of the present case.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The European Community, represented by the Commission, concluded a grant contract in respect of a project for the ‘creation and operation of a federation of regional networks of Business Angels for Eastern France’. The project, during which the Commission paid, as an advance, the sum of EUR 62 500 to the defendant, was completed on 30 September 2002.
   In that contract, the defendant undertook, inter alia, to provide a final report. Since an incomplete report was provided, the Commission put the defendant on formal notice to produce a report that met the objectives. Since that letter of formal notice and numerous other letters went unanswered by the defendant, the Commission sent a debit note and then an order for recovery of the amount of EUR 62 500 to the defendant.
   Since that debt remains unpaid, the Commission is seeking an order that the defendant pay the sum due and the losses suffered in order to cover the entirety of the expenses which the Commission has had to incur in order to recover its debt, submitting that a) the defendant has failed to fulfil its obligations laid down in the contract by failing to submit a full final report and b) payment of the sum of EUR 62 500 by the Commission was made as an advance pending acceptance of the final report.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia, Milan, by order of that court of 11 June 1998, in the case of Ordine degli Architetti delle Province di Milano e Lodi and Piero de Angelis, Architect, v. Comune di Milano, Società Pirelli, Milano Centrale Servizi SpA and Ente Autonomo Teatro alla Scala (Case C-399/98) (1999/C 1/13)

text:
C 1/8                   EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      4.1.1999
       the election or claim, relying upon the primacy and                 services is to be concluded, where such services exceed
       direct effect of the provisions of Community law?                   the threshold laid down by the relevant directives.
                                                                      (1) Council Directive 93/37/EEC, (OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 54).
(1) Application of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988,         (2) Pubblica Amministrazione (Public authority).
    and in particular of the United Kingdom tax rules relating to
    the payments of dividends by the United Kingdom resident
    companies whose parent companies are resident in other
    Member States.
(2) Case C-66/95.
                                                                      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
                                                                      Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) by order of that
                                                                      court of 27 August 1998 in the case of Finanzamt Goslar
                                                                                v. Brigitte Breitsohl
                                                                                (Case C-400/98)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale                                             (1999/C 1/14)
Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia, Milan, by
order of that court of 11 June 1998, in the case of Ordine
degli Architetti delle Province di Milano e Lodi and Piero            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
de Angelis, Architect, v. Comune di Milano, SocietaÁ                  European       Communities        by     an   order    of     the
Pirelli, Milano Centrale Servizi SpA and Ente Autonomo                Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) of 27 August
                         Teatro alla Scala                            1998, which was received at the Court Registry on
                                                                      9 November 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                         (Case C-399/98)                              Finanzamt Goslar v. Brigitte Breitsohl on the following
                                                                      questions:
                          (1999/C 1/13)
                                                                      1. According to the case-law of the Court of Justice of
                                                                           the European Communities (judgment in Case
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     C-110/94 (1) INZO), even the very first investment
European Communities by an order of the Tribunale                          expenditure incurred for the purposes of a business
Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia, Milan,                          may be regarded as an economic activity within the
(Regional Administrative Court for Lombardy) of 11 June                    meaning of Article 4 of Council Directive
1998, which was received at the Court Registry on                          77/388/EEC (2). The tax authority has to take account
9 November 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of                   of the business person's declared intention in this
Ordine degli Architetti delle Province di Milano e Lodi                    regard. The status of taxable person accorded on that
and Piero de Angelis, Architect, v. Comune di Milano,                      basis cannot, in principle, be withdrawn retroactively
SocietaÁ Pirelli, Milano Centrale Servizi SpA and Ente                     on account of certain events having or having not
Autonomo Teatro alla Scala, on the following questions:                    occurred (principle of legal certainty). This also applies
                                                                           to the deductions relating to the investment
                                                                           transactions.
1. Whether or not the State and regional legislation                       According to those principles, is the right to deduct
     which allows a builder (who holds a building permit                   tax (Article 17 of Directive 77/388/EEC) on setting
     or approved development plan) to carry out                            up' expenditure to be accorded on the basis of the
     development works directly, in total or partial                       intention to take up economic activity leading to
     discharge of the amount owed (Article 11 of Law                       taxable transactions even where the revenue authority
     No 10/77, Articles 28 and 31 of Law No 1150 of                        is already aware, when the first tax assessment is
     17 August 1942, Articles 8 and 12 of Law No 60 of                     made, that the intended economic activity leading to
     the Lombardy Region of 5 December 1977), is                           taxable transactions was not actually taken up?
     contrary to Council Directive 93/37/EEC (1), in the
     light of the strict tendering principles imposed on the
     Member States by Community law in relation to all                If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:
     public works of a value of ECU 5 million or more.
                                                                      2. In the case of a supply of buildings or parts thereof
                                                                           and of the land on which they stand, can the option
                                                                           for taxation be restricted to the buildings and parts
2. Whether, notwithstanding the principles concerning
                                                                           thereof?
     tendering referred to above, agreements between the
     administration and a private person (generally allowed
     by Article 11 of Law No 241 of 7 August 1990) may                (1) [1996] ECR I-857.
     be regarded as compatible with Community law in                  (2) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.
     areas in which the procedure is that the P.A. (2)
     chooses a party with whom a contract for such


title: Case C-115/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — Secretary of State for the Home Department v NA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 20 and 21 TFEU — Directive 2004/38/EC — Article 13(2)(c) — Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 — Article 12 — Right of residence of family members of a Union citizen — Marriage of a Union citizen and a third country national — Domestic violence — Divorce after the departure of the Union citizen — Retention of right of residence of a third country national with custody of children who are Union citizens)

text:
               12.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 335/14

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — Secretary of State for the Home Department v NA
   (Case C-115/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 20 and 21 TFEU - Directive 2004/38/EC - Article 13(2)(c) - Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 - Article 12 - Right of residence of family members of a Union citizen - Marriage of a Union citizen and a third country national - Domestic violence - Divorce after the departure of the Union citizen - Retention of right of residence of a third country national with custody of children who are Union citizens))
   (2016/C 335/18)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

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

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Secretary of State for the Home Department

      Defendant: NA

      Intervening party: Aire Centre

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 13(2)(c) 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, must be interpreted as meaning that a third-country national, who is divorced from a Union citizen at whose hands she has been the victim of domestic violence during the marriage, cannot rely on the retention of her right of residence in the host Member State, on the basis of that provision, where the commencement of divorce proceedings post-dates the departure of the Union citizen spouse from that Member State.

               2.

               Article 12 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community must be interpreted as meaning that a child and a parent who is a third-country national and who has sole custody of that child qualify for a right of residence in the host Member State, under that provision, in a situation, such as that in the main proceedings, where the other parent is a Union citizen and worked in that Member State, but ceased to reside there before the child began to attend school in that Member State.

               3.

               Article 20 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that it does not confer a right of residence in the host Member State either on a minor Union citizen, who has resided since birth in that Member State but is not a national of that State, or on a parent who is a third-county national and who has sole custody of that minor, where they qualify for a right of residence in that Member State under a provision of secondary EU law.

               4.

               Article 21 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that that it confers on that minor Union citizen a right of residence in the host Member State, provided that that citizen satisfies the conditions set out in Article 7(1) of Directive 2004/38, which it is for the referring court to determine. If so, that same provision allows the parent who is the primary carer of that Union citizen to reside with that citizen in the host Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 26.5.2015.


title: Case T-12/08: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 May 2009 — M v EMEA (Appeal — Staff case — Temporary staff — Invalidity — Application for reconsideration of the decision rejecting a first request that the Invalidity Committee be convened — Action for annulment — Non-actionable measure — Confirmatory act — New and substantial facts — Admissibility — Non-contractual liability — Non-material harm)

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/40

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 May 2009 — M v EMEA
   (Case T-12/08) (1)

   (Appeal - Staff case - Temporary staff - Invalidity - Application for reconsideration of the decision rejecting a first request that the Invalidity Committee be convened - Action for annulment - Non-actionable measure - Confirmatory act - New and substantial facts - Admissibility - Non-contractual liability - Non-material harm)
   2009/C 141/82
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: M (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Medicines Agency (EMEA) (represented by: V. Salvatore and N. Rampal Olmedo, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) in Case F-23/07 M v EMEA [2007] ECR-SC I-A-0000 and II-0000 seeking that that order be set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 19 October 2007 in Case F-23/07 M v EMEA [2007] ECR I-A-0000 and II-0000;

               2.

               Annuls the decision of the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) of 25 October 2006, in so far as it rejected M’s request of 8 August 2006 for his case to be referred to the Invalidity Committee;

               3.

               Orders EMEA to pay the appellant compensation of EUR 3 000;

               4.

               Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;

               5.

               Orders EMEA to pay the costs of the procedure before the Civil Service Tribunal and those of this case.

      (1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.


title: Case T-79/13: Judgment of the General Court of 7 October 2015 — Accorinti and Others v ECB (Non-contractual liability — Economic and monetary policy — ECB — National central banks — Restructuring of Greek public debt — Programme for purchasing securities — Securities exchange agreement for the sole benefit of central banks in the Eurosystem — Private sector involvement — Collective action clauses — Credit enhancement in the form of a buyback programme intended to support the quality of the securities as collateral — Private creditors — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Legitimate expectations — Equal treatment — Liability for a lawful legislative measure — Unusual and special damage)

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 October 2015 — Accorinti and Others v ECB
   (Case T-79/13) (1)

   ((Non-contractual liability - Economic and monetary policy - ECB - National central banks - Restructuring of Greek public debt - Programme for purchasing securities - Securities exchange agreement for the sole benefit of central banks in the Eurosystem - Private sector involvement - Collective action clauses - Credit enhancement in the form of a buyback programme intended to support the quality of the securities as collateral - Private creditors - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals - Legitimate expectations - Equal treatment - Liability for a lawful legislative measure - Unusual and special damage))
   (2015/C 398/42)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Alessandro Accorinti (Nichelino, Italy) and 214 other applicants whose names are listed in the Annex to the judgment (represented by: S. Sutti, R. Spelta and G. Sanna, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: initially S. Bening and P. Papapaschalis, then P. Senkovic and P. Papapaschalis, and finally P. Senkovic, acting as Agents, and by E. Castellani, B. Kaiser and T. Lübbig, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action for damages for the harm suffered by the applicants as a result of, in particular, the adoption by the ECB of Decision 2012/153/EU of 5 March 2012 on the eligibility of marketable debt instruments issued or fully guaranteed by the Hellenic Republic in the context of the Hellenic Republic’s debt exchange offer (OJ 2012 L 77, p. 19) and of other decisions of the European Central Bank taken in the context of the restructuring of Greek debt.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders Mr Alessandro Accorinti and the other applicants whose names are listed in the Annex to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 101, 6.4.2013.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 July 2001 in Case C-447/99: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC) — Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 — Access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes — Departure tax)

text:
29.9.2001               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                               C 275/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                              COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       1.    Declares that, by maintaining in force Article 3 of the Decreto
                                                                                Ministeriale of 13 August 1998, which brings into force Law
                                                                                No 537 of 24 December 1993, as amended by Law No 662
                        (Second Chamber)
                                                                                of 23 December 1996, and which provides for different
                                                                                departure taxes according to whether the flight in question is
                           of 4 July 2001                                          domestic or intra-Community, the Italian Republic has failed
                                                                                to fulfil its obligations under Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now,
                                                                                after amendment, Article 49 EC) and Article 3(1) of Council
in Case C-447/99: Commission of the European Communi-                              Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access for
                     ties v Italian Republic (1)                                   Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes;
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                       2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
Article 49 EC) — Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 — Access
for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes                     (1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.
                         — Departure tax)
                          (2001/C 275/01)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Provisional translation; the definition translation will be published                                    (Fifth Chamber)
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                of 5 July 2001
In Case C-447/99: Commission of the European Communities                     in Case C-100/99: Italian Republic v Council of the
(Agents: F. Benyon and S. Dragone) v Italian Republic (Agent:                                           European Union (1)
U. Leanza, assisted by I.M. Braguglia) — application for a
declaration that, by maintaining in force Article 3 of the                   (Common agricultural policy — Agrimonetary system for
Decreto Ministeriale (Ministerial Decree) of 13 August 1998,                 the euro — Transitional measures for the introduction of the
which brings into force Law No 537 of 24 December 1993, as                                                      euro)
amended by Law No 662 of 23 December 1996, and which
                                                                                (2001/C 275/02)
provides for different departure taxes according to whether the
flight in question is domestic or intra-Community, the Italian                                      (Language of the case: Italian)
Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the combined
provisions of Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amend-                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
ment, Article 49 EC) and Article 3(1) of Council Regulation                                        in the European Court Reports)
(EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access for Community
air carriers to intra-Community air routes (OJ 1992 L 240,                   In Case C-100/99: Italian Republian (Agent: U. Leanza, assisted
p. 8) — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris                  by D. Del Gaizo) v Council of the European Union (Agents:
(Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen and                     G. Maganza and I. Dı́ez Parra) and Commission of the
N. Colneric, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass,                   European Communities (Agents: K.-D. Borchardt and F. Rug-
Registrar, has given a judgment on 4 July 2001, in which it:                 geri Laderchi) — application for annulment of:


title: Joined Cases F-23/12 and F-30/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 16 September 2013 — Glantenay and Others v Commission (Civil service — Open competition — Competition notice EPSO/AD/204/10 — Selection on the basis of qualifications — Elimination of candidates without specific examination of their degrees and diplomas and professional experience)

text:
               8.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/31

      Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 16 September 2013 — Glantenay and Others v Commission
      (Joined Cases F-23/12 and F-30/12) (1)

      (Civil service - Open competition - Competition notice EPSO/AD/204/10 - Selection on the basis of qualifications - Elimination of candidates without specific examination of their degrees and diplomas and professional experience)
      (2014/C 71/59)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicants: Jérôme Glantenay and Others (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)
      Applicant: Marco Cecchetto (Rovigo, Italy) (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, Agents)

         Re:

      Application for annulment of the decision of the selection board for open competition EPSO/AD/204/10 not to admit the applicants to the next stage of the competition.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Tribunal:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decisions of the selection board for open competition EPSO/AD/204/10 to reject the applications of Mssrs Bonagurio, Cecchetto, Gecse, Glantenay, Gorgol, Kalamees and Skrobich and of Ms Venckunaite and Ms Załęska from the competition procedure without examining them in the context of the second stage of the selection based on qualifications laid down in the competition notice;

                  2.

                  Dismisses the remainder of the actions in Cases F-23/12 and F-30/12;

                  3.

                  Orders the European Commission to bear nine tenths of its costs and to pay those incurred by Mssrs Bonagurio, Cecchetto, Gecse, Glantenay, Gorgol, Kalamees and Skrobich and by Ms Venckunaite and Ms Załęska;

                  4.

                  Orders Ms Cruceru to bear her own costs and to pay one tenth of the costs incurred by the European Commission.

         (1)  OJ 2012 C 138, p. 35; OJ 2012 C 138, p. 36.


title: Case T-292/15: Action brought on 3 June 2015 — Vakakis v Commission

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/73

         Action brought on 3 June 2015 — Vakakis v Commission
   (Case T-292/15)
   (2015/C 294/88)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Vakakis International — Symvouloi gia Agrotiki Anaptixi AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: B. O’Connor, Solicitor, S. Gubel and E. Bertolotto, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               hold the Commission liable under Article 340 TFUE to compensate all damages incurred by the applicant due to the unlawful conduct of the Commission during the public procurement procedure in question, including the:

                           —

                           costs and expenses of the participation to the overall tender exercise;

                           —

                           costs of the challenge of the legality of the tender exercise;

                           —

                           loss of profit;

                           —

                           loss of opportunities.

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the present action.

      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 that the Commission breached the principles of equal treatment, sound administration and legitimate expectations as codified by Council Regulation No 1605/2002 (‘the Financial Regulation’) and the Practical Guide to contract procedures for EU external actions (‘PRAG’) by failing to adequately supervise the tender procedure and promptly investigate and provide full and complete information on the investigation of the complaint lodged by Vakakis;

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the applicant has been damaged as a result of the Commission maladministration and the decision to award the contract to Agriconsulting.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the applicant has suffered damages as a result of the Commission maladministration and the breach of the Union general principles of equal treatment, sound administration and the protection of legitimate expectations as well as the infringement of Article 94 of the Financial Regulation and Section 2.3.6. of the PRAG.


title: Case T-385/04: Action brought on 20 September 2004 by Gregorio Valero Jordana against Commission of the European Communities

text:
               20.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 284/27

         Action brought on 20 September 2004 by Gregorio Valero Jordana against Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-385/04)
   (2004/C 284/54)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 20 September 2004 by Gregorio Valero Jordana, residing in Brussels, represented by Massimo Merola and Isabelle van Schendel, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Director General of the Legal Service awarding him only one priority point under the 2003 promotion exercise, as is apparent from the Sysper 2 computerised system;

               —

               annul the decision of the appointing authority to award him a total of 20 points under the 2003 promotion exercise, as is apparent from the Sysper 2 computerised system; the list of merit of officials in grade A5 under the 2003 promotion exercise, following Promotion Committees, published in Administrative Notices No 69-2003 of 13 November 2003; the list of officials promoted to grade A4 under the 2003 exercise, published in Administrative Notices No 73-2003 of 27 November 2003; and the decision not to enter his name on those lists;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The applicant in the present case objects to the award of one priority point under the 2003 evaluation exercise and also to the appointing authority's refusal to promote him to grade A4 for the same exercise.
   In support of his claims, he asserts first of all that Article 45 of the Staff Regulations requires that merit be the determining criterion for the award of priority points by the Directorate General and for promotion. None the less, in the system called in question in the present case, promotions are determined by the award of priority points, on the proposal of each Directorate General or Promotion Committee, without a comparative examination of the merits of all officials eligible for promotion in each grade. Consequently, Articles 6, 8 and 10 of the Commission's decision of 26 April 2002 on the general provisions for the implementation of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations (DGE) breach Article 45 of the Staff Regulations. Furthermore, by awarding to each Directorate General a uniform quota of points per official, those rules prevent the appointing authority from carrying out that comparative examination.
   The applicant states in that regard that the contested decisions are the result of the criteria established in the Legal Service for the award of priority points, which lead to those points being awarded in priority to officials with the most seniority in grade, irrespective of their merits. Such an approach constitutes a misuse of power, since it seeks to bring about the promotion of the largest number and the preparation of promotions for future years, i.e. to achieve an aim different from that envisaged by the Staff Regulations, which is to reward merit.
   The applicant further relies on two procedural defects, in so far as the award of the priority points in issue was, he alleges, decided in the absence of a proposal from the Directorate of the Legal Service and in breach of the duty to state reasons.
   The applicant also claims that there has been a breach of the principle that an official should have reasonable career prospects and that Articles 9, 12(3) and 13 of the DGE are illegal.


title: Case T-669/15: Order of the General Court of 12 October 2016 — Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann and Others v ECHA (Actions for annulment — Inclusion as supplier of an active substance on the list provided for in Article 95 of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               5.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 454/27

      Order of the General Court of 12 October 2016 — Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann and Others v ECHA
      (Case T-669/15) (1)

      ((Actions for annulment - Inclusion as supplier of an active substance on the list provided for in Article 95 of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility))
      (2016/C 454/48)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann GmbH (Berlin, Germany), Ecolab Deutschland GmbH (Monheim, Germany), Schülke & Mayr GmbH (Norderstedt, Germany) and Diversey Europe Operations BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, M. Grunchard and P. Sellar, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: M. Heikkilä and C. Buchanan, acting as Agents, and by P. Oliver)

         Re:

      Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the decision of ECHA of 16 July 2015 concerning the inclusion of the company BASF SE, established in Germany, as supplier of an active substance on the list referred to in Article 95(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).

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

                  2.

                  There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene of Oxea GmbH and BASF SE.

                  3.

                  Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann GmbH, Ecolab Deutschland GmbH, Schülke & Mayr GmbH and Diversey Europe Operations BV shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) except for those relating to the applications for leave to intervene.

                  4.

                  Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann, Ecolab Deutschland, Schülke & Mayr, Diversey Europe Operations, ECHA, Oxea and BASF shall each bear its own costs relating to the applications for leave to intervene.

         (1)  OJ C 48, 8.2.2016.


title: Action brought on 9 September 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium (Case C-295/96)

text:
26 . 10 . 96         I EN 1                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 318/7
may not be added to the ' Register of protected                            service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la
designations'.                                                             Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
(') OJ No L 148 , 21 . 6 . 1996 , p . 1 .                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
( 2 ) OJ No L 208 , 24 . 7 . 1992 , p . 1 .
(•') OJ No L 184, 27 . 7. 1993 , p . 1 .                                   — declare that, by not adopting within the prescribed
                                                                                period the laws, regulations and administrative
                                                                                provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
                                                                                93/76/EEC of 13 September 1993 to limit carbon
                                                                                dioxide emissions by improving energy efficiency
Action brought on 9 September 1996 by the Commission of                          ( SAVE )( 1 ) and, in any event, by not communicating
the European Communities against the Kingdom of                                  those measures to the Commission, the Kingdom of
                                  Belgium                                        Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
                                                                                Directive,
                            Case C-294/96 )
                             ( 96/C 318/ 12 )                              — order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
9 September 1996 by the Commission of the European                         The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
Communities, represented by Hendrik van Lier and                           put forward in Case C-294/96 ( 2 ); the period prescribed by
                                                                           the Directive expired on 31 December 1994 .
Jean-Francis Pasquier, acting as Agents, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la
                                                                           (') OJ No L 237, 22 . 9 . 1993 , p. 28 .
Cruz, of the Commission's Legal Service, Wagner Centre,                    ( 2 ) See page 7 of this ed . Official Journal .
Kirchberg.
The applicant claims that the Court should :
— declare that the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil
      its obligations under the EC Treaty by not adopting                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura
      within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and               Circondariale di Roma — Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli — by
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with                   order of that court of 9 June 1995 in the criminal
      Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993                                       proceedings against Giancarlo Pezzola
      concerning medical devices ('),                                                                ( Case C-296/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 318/ 14 )
— order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support                         European Communities by order of the Pretura
                                                                           Circondariale di Roma — Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli
The binding character of the third paragraph of Article 189                ( Rome District Magistrates' Court — Tivoli Division ) of
of the EC Treaty places Member States to whom Directives                   9 June 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on
are addressed under an obligation to adopt the measures                    9 September 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the criminal
necessary to comply with those Directives within the time                  proceedings against Giancarlo Pezzola on questions
limits set therein for their implementation. In the present                identical to those submitted in Joined Cases C-58/95 and
case, when the period prescribed by Directive 93/42/EEC                    C-75/95 ( 1 ).
expired on 1 July 1994 , the Kingdom of Belgium had not
adopted the necessary measures .                                           (') See OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 , p . 6 .
 (') OJ No L 169 , 12 . 7 . 1993 , p . 1 .
                                                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by a Social Security
                                                                           Commissioner, by Decision of 2 September 1996, in the case
Action brought on 9 September 1996 by the Commission of                    of Mrs Vera A. Partridge against the Adjudication
the European Communities against the Kingdom of                                                              Officer
                                  Belgium                                                            ( Case C-297/96 )
                            Case C-295 /96
                                                                                ( 96/C 318/15 )
                              ( 96/C 318 / 13 )
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                       European Communities by decision of a Social Security
 before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                 Commissioner, of 2 September 1996 , which was received at
 9 September 1996 by the Commission of the European                        the Court Registry on 1 1 September 1996 , for a preliminary
 Communities, represented by Hendrik van Lier and                          ruling in the case of Mrs Vera A. Partridge against the
Jean-Francis Pasquier, acting as Agents, with an address for               Adjudication Officer, on the following question :


title: Case T-399/11: Action brought on 29 July 2011 — Banco Santander and Santusa v Commission

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/36

         Action brought on 29 July 2011 — Banco Santander and Santusa v Commission
   (Case T-399/11)
   2011/C 282/71
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Banco Santander, SA (Santander, Spain), Santusa Holding, SL (Boadilla del Monte, Spain) (represented by: J. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero, and M. Muñoz de Juan, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               admit and uphold the pleas for annulment contained in the application and consequently annul Article 1(1) of the contested decision, which classifies Article 12(5) of the Texto Refundido de la Ley del Impuesto sobre Sociedades (‘TRLIS’) (consolidated text of the Law on Corporation Tax) as State aid;

               —

               alternatively, annul Article 1(1) of the contested decision in so far as it declares that Article 12(5) TRLIS contains elements of State aid when it applies to acquisitions of majority shareholdings;

               —

               alternatively, annul Article 4 of the contested decision in so far as it makes the recovery order applicable to transactions completed prior to the publication in the Official Journal of the European Union of the final decision which is the subject-matter of this action (OJ 2011 L 135, p. 1);

               —

               alternatively, annul Article 1(1), and in the further alternative Article 4, in so far as they relate to transactions in Mexico, the United States and Brazil;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   This action is brought against Commission Decision C(2010) 9566 of 12 January 2011 on the tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions.
   In support of their action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of law in the analysis of the concept of selectivity and in classifying the measure at issue as State aid.

                           —

                           The applicants submit that the Commission has not shown that the tax measure at issue favours ‘certain undertakings or the production of certain goods’ as required by Article 107(1) TFEU. The Commission merely assumes that the measure is selective because it applies only to the acquisition of shareholdings in foreign undertakings (in this case in non-Member countries) and not in domestic undertakings. The applicants submit that such reasoning is erroneous and circular: the fact that the application of the measure examined — as for any other tax rule — depends on the fulfilment of certain objective requirements does not render it, in law or in fact, a selective measure. Spain has produced evidence which shows that Article 12(5) TRLIS is a general measure open, in law and fact, to all undertakings which are subject to Spanish corporation tax irrespective of their size, nature, sector or origin.

                           —

                           In the second place, far from constituting a selective advantage, the prima facie difference in treatment under Article 12(5) TRLIS serves to place all transactions for the acquisitions of shares on an equal tax footing, whether they be national or foreign. In non-Member countries, there are considerable barriers to mergers, in practice precluding them; by contrast, mergers are possible in Spain and the amortisation of financial goodwill is permitted in relation to them. Consequently, Article 12(5) TRLIS does no more than extend such amortisation to the purchase of shareholdings in undertakings in non-Member countries, a transaction which represents the closest — and most feasible — functional equivalent to domestic mergers and is thus integral to the scheme and broad logic of the Spanish system.

                           —

                           The Commission is mistaken to find that there are no barriers to merger transactions with undertakings in non-Member countries, and it is therefore mistaken to set up the reference system for establishing selectivity while not accepting the arguments regarding tax neutrality. It is particularly mistaken in its analysis of the transactions in the United States, Brazil and Mexico.

                           —

                           Alternatively, the contested decision should be annulled at least in those cases where majority control is acquired of undertakings in non-Member countries in circumstances comparable to domestic mergers and thus justified by the scheme and broad logic of the Spanish system.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an error of law in determining the beneficiary of the measure.

                           —

                           Alternatively, although it considers that Article 12(5) TRLIS contains elements of State aid, the Commission ought to have carried out an exhaustive economic analysis to ascertain who the beneficiaries of the potential aid were. The applicants claim that the beneficiaries of the aid (in the form of an inflated purchase price for the shares) were those selling the shares and not, as the Commission alleges, the Spanish undertakings which applied that measure.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the general legal principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, with regard to the manner in which the temporal scope of the recovery order is defined.

                           —

                           Alternatively, if Article 12(5) TRLIS were to be considered aid, the Commission fails to have regard to the case-law of the Courts of the European Union, in limiting the temporal scope of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations to the date of publication of the decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure (21 December 2007), and therefore in seeking recovery in those transactions subsequent to that date (except for transactions entailing the acquisition of majority shareholdings, in India and China, for which the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations is extended until 21 May 2011, the date of publication of the final decision, on the basis that in those cases there are explicit legal barriers to international mergers).

                           —

                           The applicants submit that since, in accordance with the Commission’s practice and with case-law, the initiation of the formal investigation procedure does not prejudge the nature of the measure, the initiation of that procedure cannot constitute the date on which the protection of legitimate expectations ends, but rather the latter should coincide in any event with the date on which the final decision is published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

                           —

                           Furthermore, the actual limits which the contested decision places on the protection of legitimate expectations recognised between the application of the opening decision and the final decision cannot be justified, since the protection is limited to transactions entailing the acquisition of majority shareholdings in India and China. Such protection of legitimate expectations should be extended, in accordance with case-law, to all transactions in any non-Member country.


title: Case T-267/11: Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2012 — Video Research USA, v OHIM (VR) (Community trade mark — Community figurative mark VR — Failure to apply for renewal of the mark — Cancellation of the mark upon expiry of the registration — Application for restitutio in integrum — Article 81 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               27.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/22

      Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2012 — Video Research USA, v OHIM (VR)
      (Case T-267/11) (1)

      (Community trade mark - Community figurative mark VR - Failure to apply for renewal of the mark - Cancellation of the mark upon expiry of the registration - Application for restitutio in integrum - Article 81 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
      (2012/C 331/41)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Video Research USA, Inc. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: B. Brandreth, Barrister)

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

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM, of 8 March 2011 (Case R 1187/2010-2), relating to an application for restitutio in integrum.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Video Research USA, Inc. to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 211, 16.7.2011.


title: Action brought on 16 January 1995 by the Kingdom of Belgium against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-9/95)

text:
4 . 3 . 95            I EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 54/9
Appeal brought on 13 January 1995 by New Holland Ford                     concerted practice to be incompatible with
Ltd against the judgment delivered on 27 October 1994 by                  Article 85 ( 1 ), in particular the requirement of an
the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                  anti-competitive purpose or effect.
European Communities in case T-34/92 between Fiatagri
UK Ltd and New Holland Ford Ltd and the Commission of
                   the European Communities                           2. Misapplication of Article 85 (2 ) of the Treaty and of the
                                                                          principle established in Consten and Grundig
                         ( Case C-8/95 P
                            ( 95/C 54/15                                  The Court of First Instance denied the applicability to
                                                                          the present case of the principle formulated in the
                                                                          Consten and Grundig judgment, according to which:
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 27 October
                                                                           'the provision in Article 85 ( 2 ) that the agreements
1994 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance ,
                                                                          prohibited pursuant to Article 85 shall be automatically
of the European Communities in case T-34/92 between
                                                                          void applies only to those parts of the agreement which
Fiatagri UK Ltd and New Holland Ford Ltd and the
                                                                           are subject to the prohibition, or to the agreement as a
Commission of the European Communities, was brought                       whole if those parts do not appear to be severable from
before the Court ofJustice of the European Communities on                 the agreement itself f 1 )..
13 January 1995 by New Holland Ford Ltd, of Cranes Farm
Road, Basildon, Essex (United Kingdom), represented by
Mario Siragusa of the Rome Bar and Giuseppe                               The Court of First Instance erred in denying the
Scassellati-Sforzolini of the Bologna Bar, both of Cleary,                 applicability of an EC law principle which would likely
                                                                           have led it to conclude that the Decision had to be
Gottlieb, Steen and Hamilton, Brussels, with an address for
                                                                           annulled.
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger, Hoss
and Prussen, 15 , Cote d'Eich.
                                                                      3 . Misapplication of Article 85 ( 3 )
The Appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           The Court of First Instance upheld the Commission's
                                                                           finding on Article 85 ( 1 ) and denied that the exchange,
— declare the appeal timely and admissible,                                or at least the data system, merited an individual
                                                                           exemption. While permitting the Commission not to
— annul the Judgment in its entirety,                                      prove actual effects on competition under Article 85 ( 1 ),
                                                                           it required the applicants to prove that competition
— annul the Decision in its entirety or, alternatively,                    would actually have developed differently in the absence
       remand the case to the Court of First Instance, and                 of the exchange, in order to show that information
                                                                           under the exchange and the data system is indispensable
— condemn the Commission to pay the Appellant's legal                      for the purpose of Article 85 ( 3 ). The absence of
       fees and expenses.                                                  demonstrable dramatic changes in the market after the
                                                                           exchange was suspended in 1988 prove that the
                                                                           Commission wrongly presumed that Article 85 ( 1 )
 Pleas in law and main arguments:                                          should apply to the exchange.
The Appellant submits that the judgment of the Court of               (') Judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases 56/64 and
 First Instance is defective and should be annulled because of:           58/64 ( 1966 ) ECR p. 292, 344 .
 ( a ) breaches of procedural rules adversely affecting the
 interests of the appellants; and ( b) the misapplication of
 Article 85 of the Treaty.
 Procedural errors
                                                                      Action brought on 16 January 1995 by the Kingdom of
 The Court of First Instance failed to give sufficient reasons        Belgium against the Commission of the European
 on decisive points of the judgment and failed to address all                                  Communities
 of the material factual errors in the Decision and their
                                                                                Case C-9/95 )
 impact on the legality of the Decision.
                                                                                95/C 54/16
 Substantive errors
                                                                      An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
 1 . Misapplication of Article 85 ( 1 )                               European Communities on 16 January 1995 by the
                                                                      Kingdom of Belgium, represented by J. Devadder, Head of
       The Court of First Instance misapplied Article 85 ( 1 ) of     Department at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Foreign
       the Treaty in two significant ways: ( a ) it wrongly defined   Trade and Cooperation with Developing Countries, with an
        and described the relevant market; and ( b ) it wrongly       address for service in Luxembourg at the Belgian Embassy, 4
        interpreted the requirements for an agreement or              Rue des Girondins .
 ---pagebreak---  No C 54/10         I EN I                Official Journal of the European Communities                                      4 . 3 . 95
The applicant asks the Court to annul Commission                     The Appellant claims that the Court should:
Regulation (EEC) No 2791/94 of 16 November 1994 on the
exceptional allocation of a quantity additional to the tariff         1 . annul the order; and
 quota for imports of bananas in 1994 as a result of tropical
 storm Debbie ( l ) and order the Commission to pay the              2 . declare the action admissible or, in the alternative, join
costs .                                                                   the question of admissibility to the substance and refer
                                                                          the case back to the Court of First Instance, continuing
                                                                          proceedings from the stage at which they were stayed,-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           for a decision on the admissiblity of the applications to
                                                                          intervene .
Insufficient legal basis: Article 30 of Council Regulation
 (EEC) No 404/93 on the common organization of the
market in bananas permits the adoption of specific                   Pleas in law and main arguments
transitional measures solely in order to assist the transition
                                                                     The true nature of Council Directive 93/118/EC of
to the single market from the arrangements existing prior to
its entry into force; it cannot serve as the legal basis for the     22 December 1993 amending Directive 85/73/EEC on the
contested Regulation. In the first place, tropical storm             financing of health inspections and controls of fresh meat
Debbie has nothing to do with problems relating to the               and poultrymeat (*), hereinafter referred to as 'the contested
transition. Secondly, it was certainly not the Council's             directive', is that of a decision. The margin of discretion
intention to create by means of Article 30 the possibility of        enjoyed by the Member States under the contested
adopting measures which coincide with previously existing            Directive, in so far as it amends Directive 85/73/EEC, is
national measures. The purpose of the latter was principally,        merely token and virtually without effect. A correct and
and sometimes exclusively, to protect national markets. The          comprehensive reading of the directive reveals that the use of
introduction of the single market is intended to remove such         the verb 'may' is merely rhetorical. The contested directive is
                                                                     of direct and individual concern to the members of Asocarne
protective measures. The Commission cannot, therefore,
use Article 30 as a basis for establishing measures similar to       who have a veterinary registration number and were liable
those which existed prior to the single market.                      for fees before its entry into force, so that Asocarne has
                                                                     standing to bring this action inasmuch as the contested
                                                                     directive is of direct and individual concern to its
The allocation of the additional quantity is incompatible            members .
with Article 19 ( 1 ) of Regulation (EEC ) No 404/93 :
Article 1 ( 1 ) of the contested regulation allocates the
additional quantity solely among operators affected by the           Contrary to the view of the Court of First Instance, in the
storm, although Article 19 ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EEC )              case of directives, the judicial protection of individuals is not
No 404/93 makes no provision for derogating from the                 duly and sufficiently assured by the national courts. The
method of allocation it lays down.                                   administration of justice is necessarily subject to delay.
                                                                    Moreover, some Spanish courts have demonstrated a certain
                                                                    reluctance to make references for preliminary rulings under
(!) OJ No L 296 , 17. 11 . 1990, p . 33 .                           Article 177 of the EEC Treaty.
                                                                     (M OJ No L 340, 31 . 12 . 1993, p. 15 .
Appeal brought on 4 January 1995 by Asociacion Espanola
de Empresas de la Carne (Asocarne) against the order made
on 20 October 1994 by the First Chamber of the Court of             Action brought on 13 January 1995 by the Commission of
First Instance of the European Communities in Case                  the European Communities against the Kingdom of
T-99/94 between Asociacion Espanola de Empresas de la                                            Belgium
   Carne (Asocarne) and Council of the European Union                                        (Case C-ll/95 )
                       (Case C-10/95 P)                                                       ( 95/C 54/18 )
                          (95/C 54/17)
                                                                    An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
                                                                    before the Court of Justice of the European Communities,
An appeal against the order made on 20 October 1994 by
the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the             represented by Pieter Van Nuffel, of its Legal Service, acting
                                                                    as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
European Communities in Case T-99/94 between
                                                                    office of Georgios Kremlis, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Asociacion Espanola de Empresas de la Carne (Asocarne)
and Council of the European Union was brought before the
Court ofJustice of the European Communities on 4 January            The Appellant claims that the Court should:
1995 by Asociacion Espanola de Empresas de la Carne
(Asocarne), represented by Paloma Llaneza Gonzalez, of the          1 . declare that,
Madrid Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe, BP                        — by maintaining in respect of the French community
1107, Luxembourg L-1011 .                                                     in the French-speaking region a system of prior


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 February 2001 in Case T-186/98: Compañía Internacional de Pesca y Derivados, SA (Inpesca) v Commission of the European Communities (Fisheries — Community financial aid for the construction of fishing vessels — Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86 — Request for reconsideration — Substantial new facts — Action for annulment and damages — Inadmissible)

text:
2.6.2001               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 161/15
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 7 February 2001                                                         of 20 March 2001
in Case T-186/98: Compañı́a Internacional de Pesca y                     in Case T-30/99 Bocchi Food Trade International GmbH
Derivados, SA (Inpesca) v Commission of the European                            v Commission of the European Communities (1)
                         Communities (1)
                                                                          (Bananas — Imports from ACP States and third countries
(Fisheries — Community financial aid for the construction                 — Calculation of annual quantity allocated — Action for
of fishing vessels — Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86 —                        damages — Admissibility — Possibility of relying on WTO
Request for reconsideration — Substantial new facts —                     rules Misuse of powers — General principles of Community
     Action for annulment and damages — Inadmissible)                                                    law)
                         (2001/C 161/32)                                                           (2001/C 161/33)
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                                           (Language of the case: German)
In Case T-186/98: Compañı́a Internacional de Pesca y Deriva-             In Case T-30/99 Bocchi Foad Trade International GmbH,
dos, SA (Inpesca), established in Bermeo (Spain), represented             established in Bergisch Gladbach (Germany), represented by
by M.I. Angulo Fuertes and M.B. Angulo Fuertes, abogadas,                 G. Meier, avocat, against Commission of the European Com-
with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Com-                   munities (Agents: K.-D. Borchardt and H. van Vliet) —
mission of the European Communities (Agents: L. Visaggio                  application for compensation for the loss which the applicant
and J. Guerra Fernández) — application for, first, annulment             has allegedly suffered as a result of the Commission introdu-
of the decision allegedly contained in a letter from the                  cing, under Regulation (EC) No 2362/98 of 28 October 1998
Commission dated 16 September 1998 and, second, an order                  laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council
that the Commission make good the harm allegedly sustained                Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 regarding imports of bananas
by the applicant — the Court of First Instance (Second                    into the Community (OJ L 293, 1998, p. 32.), provisions
Chamber), composed of: J. Pirrung, President, A. Potocki and              which are alleged to conflict with World Trade Organisation
A.W.H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment             (WTO) rules and certain general principles of Community law
on 7 February 2001, in which it:                                          — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of
                                                                          P. Lindh, President, R. Garcia-Valdecasas and J.D. Cooke,
                                                                          Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar,
1.    Declares the ‘further observations’ filed by the applicant on       has given a judgment on 20 March 2001, in which it:
      21 July 1999 inadmissible;
                                                                          1.    Dismisses the action;
2.    Dismisses the application;
                                                                          2.    Orders the applicant to pay its own costs and those of the
3.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.                                    Commission.
(1) OJ C 20 of 23.1.99.                                                   (1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.99.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 December 2002 in Case C-442/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La-Mancha): Ángel Rodríguez Caballero v Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Fogasa), (Social policy — Protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer — Directive 80/987/EEC — Scope — "Claims" — "Pay" — "Salarios de tramitación" — Payment guaranteed by the guarantee institution — Payment subject to the adoption of a judicial decision)

text:
25.1.2003                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 19/5
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                           conciliation procedure supervised and approved by a court; it
                                                                                must apply to members of the group disadvantaged by that
                                                                                discrimination the arrangements in force in respect of employees
                           (Sixth Chamber)                                        whose claims of the same type come, according to the national
                                                                                definition of ‘pay’, within the scope of that directive.
                       of 12 December 2002
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.
in Case C-442/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La-Mancha):
Ángel Rodríguez Caballero v Fondo de Garantía Salarial
                               (Fogasa), (1)
(Social policy — Protection of employees in the event of the
insolvency of their employer — Directive 80/987/EEC —
Scope — ‘Claims’ — ‘Pay’ — ‘Salarios de tramitación’ —                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Payment guaranteed by the guarantee institution — Pay-
      ment subject to the adoption of a judicial decision)
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                            (2003/C 19/08)
                                                                                of 12 December 2002
                    (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                            in Case C-456/00: French Republic v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            (Action for annulment — State aid — Common organisation
                                                                            of the markets — Wine — Measures for adapting vineyards
                                                                                in Charentes)
In Case C-442/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La-Mancha                                           (2003/C 19/09)
(Spain) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Ángel Rodríguez Caballero and
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Fogasa), on the interpretation of
Article 1 of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October
1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
relating to the protection of employees in the event of the                                     in the European Court Reports)
insolvency of their employer (OJ 1980 L 283, p. 23), the Court
(Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the
Chamber, C. Gulmann, V. Skouris, F. Macken and N. Colneric
(Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General;
                                                                            In Case C-456/00, French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 December
                                                                            L. Bernheim) v Commission of the European Communities
2002, in which it:                                                          (Agent: A. Alves Vieira and D. Triantafyllou): Application for
                                                                            annulment of Commission Decision 2001/52/EC of 20 Sep-
1.    Claims in respect of ‘salarios de tramitación’ must be regarded       tember 2000 on the State aid implemented by France in the
      as employees’ claims arising from contracts of employment or          wine-growing sector (OJ 2001 L 17, p. 30), the Court (Sixth
      employment relationships and relating to pay, within the              Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen, President of the Second
      meaning of Articles 1(1) and 3(1) of Council Directive 80/            Chamber, acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber,
      987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the                V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues
      laws of the Member States relating to the protection of               (Rapporteur), Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass,
      employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer,           Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 December 2002, in
      irrespective of the procedure under which they are determined,        which it:
      if, according to the national legislation concerned, such claims,
      when recognised by judicial decision, give rise to liability on the   1.    Dismisses the action;
      part of the guarantee institution and if a difference in treatment
      of identical claims acknowledged in a conciliation procedure is
      not objectively justified.                                            2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
2.    The national court must set aside national legislation which, in
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 45 of 10.2.2001.
      breach of the principle of equality, excludes from the concept of
      ‘pay’ within the meaning of Article 2(2) of Directive 80/987
      claims in respect of ‘salarios de tramitación’ agreed in a


title: Case T-450/10 P: Appeal brought on 24 September 2010 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 9 July 2010 in Case F-91/09, Marcuccio v Commission

text:
               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/45

         Appeal brought on 24 September 2010 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 9 July 2010 in Case F-91/09, Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case T-450/10 P)
   ()
   2010/C 317/80
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

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

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               In any event, set aside in its entirety and without exception the order under appeal.

               —

               Declare that the action at first instance, in relation to which the order under appeal was made, was perfectly admissible.

               —

               Allow in its entirety and without any exception whatsoever the relief sought by the appellant at first instance.

               —

               Order the Commission to reimburse the appellant in respect of all costs, disbursements and fees incurred by him in relation to both the proceedings at first instance and the present appeal proceedings.

               —

               In the alternative, refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal, sitting in a different formation, for a fresh decision.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present appeal is brought against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) of 9 July 2010. That order dismissed as partly manifestly inadmissible and partly unfounded an action which sought primarily compensation for damage which the appellant claims to have suffered as a result of a request sent to him to undergo certain medical examinations necessary for the purpose of any assessment as to his invalidity.
   In support of his claims, the appellant submits that no reasons are stated whatsoever in the order under appeal in support of the findings relating to the alleged inadmissibility of the claim for damages.
   The appellant also alleges unreasonable misinterpretation and misapplication Article 270 TFEU, Article 90 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, the principles of legal certainty, the right to judicial protection, the hierarchy of sources of law, the separation of powers and of the principle that the court is subject to the law.


title: Case C-416/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Faro (Portugal) lodged on 27 July 2016 — Luís Manuel Piscarreta Ricardo v Portimão Urbis, EM, SA — in liquidation and Others

text:
               17.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/4

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Faro (Portugal) lodged on 27 July 2016 — Luís Manuel Piscarreta Ricardo v Portimão Urbis, EM, SA — in liquidation and Others
   (Case C-416/16)
   (2016/C 383/05)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Faro

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Luís Manuel Piscarreta Ricardo

      Defendants: Portimão Urbis, EM, SA — in liquidation, Município de Portimão, and EMARP — Empresa Municipal de Águas e Resíduos de Portimão, EM, SA

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 1, and in particular paragraph (b) thereof, of Council Directive 2001/23/EC (1) of 12 March 2001 apply to a situation such as that of the present case, in which a municipal undertaking (whose sole shareholder is the municipality) is dissolved (by decision of the municipality’s executive body), and the activities carried on by it are allocated in part to the municipality and in part to another municipal undertaking (whose objects were altered to that end — and which is also wholly owned by the municipality), that is, in those circumstances may it be considered that there has been a transfer of a business within the meaning of the abovementioned directive?

               2.

               Must an employee not in active service (that is, having had his employment contract suspended) be considered included in the concept of ‘employee’ within the meaning of Article 2(1)(d) of Directive 2001/23/EC and, accordingly, must the rights and obligations arising from the contract of employment be considered transferred to the transferee, in accordance with Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/23/EC?

               3.

               Is the introduction of restrictions on the transfer of employees, that is, according to the type of employment relationship or its duration, in the context of a transfer of a business, in particular restrictions of the type referred to in Article 62(5), (6) and (11) of the RJAEL, (2) permissible and therefore consistent with EU law?

      (1)  Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses (OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16).

      (2)  Regime Jurídico da Atividade Empresarial Local e das Participações Locais (Portuguese legal regime for local businesses and the shareholdings held by local authorities).


title: Case T-35/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 April 2008 — Leche Celta v OHIM — Celia (Celia) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Application for Community figurative mark Celia — Earlier national word mark CELTA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               7.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/24

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 April 2008 — Leche Celta v OHIM — Celia (Celia)
   (Case T-35/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition - Application for Community figurative mark Celia - Earlier national word mark CELTA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2008/C 142/43)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Leche Celta, SL (Puentedeume, Spain) (represented by: J. Calderón Chavero, T. Villate Consonni and M. Tañez Manglano, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Celia SA (Craon, France) (represented by: D. Masson and F. de Castelnau, lawyers)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 December 2006 (Case R 294/2006-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Leche Celta, SL and Celia SA.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Leche Celta, SL to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.


title: Case T-86/11: Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2011 — Bamba v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire — Freezing of funds — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               23.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 219/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2011 — Bamba v Council
   (Case T-86/11) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire - Freezing of funds - Obligation to state reasons)
   2011/C 219/21
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Nadiany Bamba (Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire) (represented by: P. Haïk and J. Laffont, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and A. Vitro, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. Cujo and M. Konstantinidis, Agents)

      Re:

   APPLICATION for annulment of Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011 amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 36) and of Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 1), in so far as they concern the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011 amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire, and Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire, in so far as they concern Ms Nadiany Bamba;

               2.

               Maintains the effects of Decision 2011/18 in respect of Ms Bamba until the annulment of Regulation No 25/2011 takes effect;

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by Ms Bamba;

               4.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 95, 26.3.2011.