title: Case C-466/10: Action brought on 27 September 2010 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

text:
               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/25

         Action brought on 27 September 2010 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-466/10)
   ()
   2010/C 317/44
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Patakia and D. Kukovec, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic

      Form of order sought

   The Court is asked to:

               —

               declare that, by applying a negotiated procedure, without prior publication of a contract notice, in connection with the handling of dangerous medical waste of an infectious nature from health establishments falling under the responsibility of the First D.Y.P.E. (Regional Health Authority) of Attiki, the Hellenic Republic has infringed its obligations under Article 28 of Directive 2004/18/EC [of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts] inasmuch as none of the conditions governing the derogations provided for in Article 31 of the Directive is satisfied, in particular the conditions of Article 31(1)(c), which justify a departure from the general rule and application of the exceptional procedure provided for by the said article;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               Following a complaint submitted to it, the European Commission examined the invitation issued by the Committee for Health Supplies regarding participation in a negotiated tendering procedure, without prior publication of a contract notice, in connection with the handling of dangerous medical waste of an infectious nature from health establishments falling under the responsibility of the First Regional Health Authority of Attiki.

               2.

               The Commission points out that the publication of a contract notice with clearly defined conditions is required as a general rule, whereas the negotiated procedure without prior publication of a contract notice is allowed only as an exception, in very specific circumstances which are defined in Articles 30 and 31 of Directive 2004/18/EC and which should be interpreted restrictively, while the burden of proving that there are actually exceptional circumstances justifying a derogation is borne by those relying on the provisions in question.

               3.

               In that connection, the Commission considers that, on the basis of the invitation in question, it appears that, although the contracting authority availed itself of the exceptional procedure provided for in Article 31(1)(c) of Directive 2004/18/EC, it has not shown that the conditions laid down in that provision were satisfied and justified application of the procedure in question.

               4.

               The Commission considers that by, applying the negotiated procedure without prior publication of a contract notice, the contracting authority infringed its obligations under Article 28 of the directive, in so far as none of the conditions governing the derogation provided for in Article 31 of the directive was satisfied and in particular the conditions of Article 31(1)(c), which justify a departure from the general rule and application of the exceptional procedure provided for in the said article.


title: Case C-505/11 P: Order of the President of the Court of 8 May 2012 — ThyssenKrupp Elevator AG v European Commission

text:
               6.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/21

         Order of the President of the Court of 8 May 2012 — ThyssenKrupp Elevator AG v European Commission
   (Case C-505/11 P) (1)

   2012/C 303/40
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 347, 26.11.2011.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven by judgment of 24 May 1995 in the case of Affish BV and Rijksdienst voor de Keuring van Vee en Vlees (Case C-183/95)

text:
No C 208/ 12            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        12 . 8 . 95
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de                Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
Commerce de Nivelles by judgment of that court of 2 June               Hamburg by judgment of 19 May 1995 in the case of T. Port
1995 in the case of Biogen Inc. v. Smithkline Beecham                           GmbH & Co v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
                           Biologicals SA                                                          ( Case C-l 82/95 )
                         ( Case C-181 /95 )                                                           ( 95/C 208/23 )
                           ( 95/C 208/22
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by a judgment of the Joint Senate of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 the Finanzgericht ( Finance Court) Hamburg for the Lander
European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal de                  of the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg, Lower Saxony
Commerce de Nivelles ( Commercial Court, Nivelles ) of                 and Schleswig-Holstein, Fourth Senate, of 19 May 1995 ,
2 June 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on              which was received at the Court Registry on 12 June 1995 ,
12 June 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Biogen          for a preliminary ruling in the case of T. Port GmbH & Co v.
Inc . v. Smithkline Beecham Biologicals SA on the following            Hauptzollamt ( Principal Customs Office ) Hamburg-Jonas
questions :                                                            on the following questions :
                                                                       1 . Is the first paragraph of Article 234 of the EC Treaty to
1 . In the event that the holder of the basic patent or his                  be interpreted as meaning that the application of
     successor in title is a person other than the holder of the             Articles I, II and III of the GATT takes precedence in the
     authorization to place the medical product concerned                    Federal Republic of Germany over Articles 18 and 19 in
     on the market, is the latter obliged to provide to the                  conjunction with Article 17 of Regulation ( EEC )
     patent holder on request, or, where appropriate, several                No 404/93 (')?
     patent holders when they so request, the 'copy' of that
     authorization which is referred to in Article 8 ( 1 ) ( b ) of
     Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992
                                                                       2 . ( a ) Is Regulation ( EC ) No 478/95 ( 2 ), which is based on
                                                                                Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 , valid ?
     concerning the creation of a supplementary protection
     certificate for medicinal products (')?
                                                                             ( b ) If so, is the first paragraph of Article 234 of the EC
                                                                                Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that the
2 . Where one and the same product is covered by several                           application of Article XIII of the GATT takes
      basic patents belonging to different holders, does                           precedence over that regulation ?
      Regulation ( EEC ) No 1768/92 preclude the grant of a
     supplementary protection certificate to each holder of a          3 . In the event that questions 1 and 2 ( b ) are answered in
      basic patent ?                                                         the affirmative : are Community citizens entitled to rely
                                                                             in proceedings before the courts of Member States of the
                                                                             Community on the precedence of the aforesaid GATT
3 . Regard being had to the wording of Article 6 of                          provisions as regards their application ?
      Regulation ( EEC ) No 1768/92, may the holder of the
      authorization to place the medicinal product on the
      market refuse to give a holder of a basic patent or his          4 . On what conditions may a court of a Member State
      successor in title the copy of that authorization referred             grant interim relief by issuing an interim injunction
      to in Article 8 ( 1 ) ( b ) of the regulation and thereby              where it has doubts as to the applicability of the
      deprive him of the possibility of completing his                       secondary Community law which underlies the legal
      application for a             supplementary protection                 appraisal ?
     certificate ?
                                                                       (!) OJ No L 47, 25 . 2 . 1993 , p . 1 .
                                                                       ( 2 ) OJ No L 49 , 4 . 3 . 1995 , p . 13 .
4 . May the relevant administrative and/or government
      authority which granted the authorization to place the
      product on the market or is the depositary of an original
      or a copy of the said authorization refuse to supply a
      copy to the holder of the basic patent or patents
      concerned or to his successor in title or may it decide,         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van
      arbitrarily or subject to certain conditions , whether it is     Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven by judgment of 24 May 1995
      advisable to provide or communicate such copy with a             in the case of Affish BV and Rijksdienst voor de Keuring van
      view to its being used to support an application for a                                            Vee en Vlees
      supplementary protection certificate under the                                                ( Case C-l 83/95 )
      provisions of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1768/92 ?
                                                                                ( 95/C 208/24 )
(>) OJ No L 182 , 2 . 7. 1992 , p . 1 .                                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by a judgment of the College van
                                                                        Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven ( Administrative Court for
                                                                        Trade and Industry) of 24 May 1995 , which was received at
                                                                        the Court Registry on 12 June 1 995 , for a preliminary ruling
 ---pagebreak--- 12 . 8 . 95            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 208/ 13
in the case of Affish BV and Rijksdienst voor de Keuring van         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Vee en Vlees on the following question :
                                                                     — Excessive duration of proceedings : owing to the
Is Commission Decision 95/119/EC of 7 April 1995 valid in               duration proceedings of five years and six months the
so far as it extends to Surimi fishery products, also referred           Court of First Instance infringed the applicant's right to
to as kamaboko , as imported by the applicant, which come               a remedy within a reasonable time .
from regions of Japan other than those in which the
establishments investigated by a mission of experts from the         — Breach of the principle of oral proceedings; the Court of
Commission were located according to their report of                    First Instance did not deliver its judgment until 22
4 April 1995 , or at least from establishments other than               months after closure of the oral procedure, that is to say
those investigated , and in relation to products which,                 at a time when the oral procedure could no longer be and
following appropriate investigation upon their importation              was no longer in its mind .
into the Community, showed no sign of health risks ?
                                                                     — Infringement of recognized rules of evidence : in
                                                                        establishing the facts the Court fundamentally infringed
                                                                        recognized rules of evidence in relation to various sets of
                                                                        facts . Thus, from the beginning it employed an incorrect
                                                                        yardstick for evaluating the evidence in as much as it left
                                                                        out of account the applicant's submissions and
Appeal lodged on 14 June 1995 by Baustahlgewebe GmbH                    examined only whether the Commission had succeeded
against the judgment of the Court of First Instance ( First              'to the requisite legal standard ' in adducing evidence of
Chamber) of 6 April 1995 in Case T-145/89,
                                                                        specific factual assertions . This also constitutes an
             Baustahlgewebe GmbH v. Commission                          infringement of the judicial duty of elucidation and of
                       ( Case C-185/95 P)                               the right to a fair trial . By declining to investigate the
                          ( 95/C 208/25 )                               evidence offered by the applicant the Court of First
                                                                        Instance infringed its duty to conduct an unfettered
                                                                        appraisal of the evidence, the principle of in dubio pro
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 6 April 1995 by             reo and finally the applicant's right to a fair hearing.
the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance in Case
T-145/89         between Baustahlgewebe          GmbH and
                                                                     — Misapplication of provisions limited as to time
Commission was brought before the Court of Justice of the               contained in the Rules of Procedure : to accept witness
European Communities on 6 April 1995 by Baustahlgewebe                  evidence as offered in the reply would manifestly not
GmbH, established in Gelsenkirchen, represented by
                                                                        have led to a delay in the proceedings . The reply together
Joachm Sedemund and Dr Frank Montag, of Deringer                        with the offer of witness evidence was dated 30 April
Tessin Herrmann & Sedemund , Cologne and Brussels, with                  1990, whilst the oral hearing took place more than three
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                 years later, namely on June 1993 .
Aloyse May, 31 Grand'rue, L-1661 Luxembourg.
                                                                     — Infringement of the right to a fair hearing. The Court of
The appellant claims that the Court should :                            First Instance erred in dismissing the request made by the
                                                                        applicant in its application that the Commission be
1 . Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of            ordered to produce certain documents to it for
     the European Communities ( First Chamber ) of 6 April              inspection . In the administrative procedure before the
     1995 in Case T-145/89 (') in as much as it sets the                Commission the applicant was not legally represented
     amount of the fine imposed on the applicant at ECU 3               and had not inspected the documents in the file; this was
     million ( paragraph 2 of the operative part ), dismisses the       essentially attributable to the fact that the statement of
     remaining claims ( paragraph 3 of the operative part) and          objections held the ' German group ' and the
     orders the applicant to bear its own costs and one-third           Fachverband       Betonstahlmatten,      rather  than     the
     of the Commission 's costs ( paragraph 4 of the operative          applicant, responsible for alleged infringements of
     part );                                                            competition law. At no time did the applicant have
                                                                        available to it the totality of the documents against it and
2 . Annul Articles 1 , 2 and 3 of Commission Decision                   in its favour . On no account may the Court of First
     89/515/EEC ( 2 ) of 2 August 1989 relating to a                    Instance decline to order the production of those
     proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty                        documents by relying on the argument that the applicant
     ( IV/31 . 553 — Welded Steel Mesh ) in so far as they affect       gave no indication that other documents would have
     the applicant and have not already been annulled by the             been relevant to its defence. A similarly serious
     aforementioned judgment of the Court of First Instance             infringement of the applicant's rights of the defence is
     in Case T-145 /89 ;                                                constituted by the dismissal of the request that the
                                                                         Commission be ordered to produce to the applicant for
3 . In the alternative, reduce to a reasonable amount the               inspection the documentation communicated to the
     fine of ECU 3 million imposed in paragraph 2 of the                 Commission by the Federal Cartel Office relating to the
     operative part of the aforementioned judgment of the               structural crisis cartel and the documents concerning the
     Court of First Instance in Case T-145/ 89 ;                        trilateral negotiations between the Commission, the
                                                                         Federal Cartel Office and the representatives of the
4 . Order the Commission to pay the costs at first instance              German undertakings involved in the structural crisis
     and on appeal .                                                    cartel . Irrespective of whether the structural crisis cartel


title: Case T-225/15: Action brought on 4 May 2015 — QuaMa Quality Management v OHIM — Microchip Technology (medialbo)

text:
               13.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/21

         Action brought on 4 May 2015 — QuaMa Quality Management v OHIM — Microchip Technology (medialbo)
   (Case T-225/15)
   (2015/C 228/26)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: QuaMa Quality Management GmbH (Glashütten, Germany) (represented by: C. Russ, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Microchip Technology, Inc. (Chandler, United States of America)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘medialbo’ — Application No 11 454 766

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 February 2015 in Joined Cases R 1809/2014-4 and R 1680/2014-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 41(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

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


title: Case F-12/06: Action brought on  3 February 2006  — Suleimanova v Committee of the Regions

text:
               8.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/48

         Action brought on 3 February 2006 — Suleimanova v Committee of the Regions
   (Case F-12/06)
   (2006/C 86/88)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Karina Suleimanova (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Committee of the Regions of the European Union
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision to appoint the applicant an official of the European Communities in so far as it sets her recruitment grade pursuant to Article 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations;

               —

               Order the Committee of the Regions to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   As a successful candidate in a competition for which the notice was published before 1 May 2004, the applicant was recruited after the entry into force of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004 amending the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of other servants (1).
   In her application, the applicant first submits that the contested decision fails to take account of the legal framework set up by the competition notice. She claims that, pursuant to Article 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, she was recruited at a grade lower than that mentioned in the competition notice.
   The applicant also considers that the contested decision infringes Articles 5, 29 and 31 of the Staff Regulations and the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination. Successful candidates in the same competition or the same level of competition were graded at different levels depending on whether they were recruited before or after the entry into force of Regulation No 723/2004.
   In addition, the applicant lastly alleges a breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, inasmuch as she reasonably expected to be recruited at the grade mentioned in the competition notice to fill the post for which she had applied.

      (1)  OJEU L 124, 27.04.2004, p. 1


title: Case T-267/06: Action brought on 25 September 2006 — Italian Republic v Commission

text:
               18.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/41

         Action brought on 25 September 2006 — Italian Republic v Commission
   (Case T-267/06)
   (2006/C 281/73)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Aiello, Avvocato dello Stato)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision C (2006) 3331 of 27 July 2006, notified on 28 July 2006, in so far as it excludes from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Italian Republic under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF);

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The present action is brought against Commission Decision C (2006) 3331 of 27 July 2006 in so far as it excludes from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Italian Republic under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF).
   In support of its claim, the applicant alleges infringement and misapplication of:

               —

               Paragraph 4(iv) of the Annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 of 7 July 1995 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 regarding the procedure for the clearance of the accounts of the EAGGF Guarantee Section (OJ 1995 L 158 of 8.7.1995, p. 6);

               —

               Article 4(3), Article 17(2), Article 23, Article 24 and Article 30(1) and (2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables (OJ 1996 L 297 of 21.11.1996, p. 1);

               —

               Article 17(2) and (3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 659/97 of 16 April 1997 laying down detailed rules for the application of Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 (OJ 1997 L 100 of 17.4.1997, p. 22);

               —

               Article 4(3), Article 8 and Article 24(3) of, and Paragraph 2(a) of Annex III to, Commission Regulation (EC) No 562/2000 of 15 March 2000 laying down detailed rules for the application of Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal (OJ 2000 L 68 of 16.3.2000, p. 22).


title: Case C-192/11: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 26 January 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Poland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2009/147/EC — Conservation of wild birds — Scope of the system of protection — Derogations from the prohibitions laid down by the directive)

text:
               10.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/6

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 26 January 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-192/11) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2009/147/EC - Conservation of wild birds - Scope of the system of protection - Derogations from the prohibitions laid down by the directive)
   2012/C 73/10
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann and S. Petrova, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Szpunar, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 1, 5 and 9(1) and (2) of Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 2010 L 20, p. 7) — Scope — Protection restricted only to species of birds occurring in national territory — Incorrect definition of the conditions for derogating from the prohibitions laid down by the directive

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that by not applying national conservation measures to all species of naturally occurring birds in the wild state in the European territory of the Member States, which are entitled to protection under Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds, and also by not correctly defining the conditions to be complied with in order to be able to derogate from the prohibitions laid down by that directive, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1, 5 and 9(1) and (2) of that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 16.7.2011.


title: Case C-436/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Antwerpen by order of that court of  29 November 2005  in 1. Lucien de Graaf, and 2. Gudula Daniels v Belgian State

text:
               11.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 36/24

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Antwerpen by order of that court of 29 November 2005 in 1. Lucien de Graaf, and 2. Gudula Daniels v Belgian State
   (Case C-436/05)
   (2006/C 36/49)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Hof van Beroep te Antwerpen of 29 November 2005, received at the Court Registry on 5 December 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between 1. Lucien de Graaf, and 2. Gudula Daniels and Belgian State on the following questions:

               1.

               Is Regulation No 1408/71 (1) applicable to a supplementary crisis contribution (ACB) levied by national law that is intended to provide alternative financing of social security?

               2.

               Under Article 39 EC may Belgium require a natural person, who is resident in Belgium but who carries out (virtually) all his professional activities in another Member State, to pay the supplementary crisis contribution for the financing of social security if the person concerned is not liable to pay contributions to social security in Belgium but in the State of his employment, while all other residents of the State of residence who are subject to the supplementary crisis contribution are liable to pay contributions to social security in Belgium?

               3.

               Does Article 39 EC permit a Member State to make a distinction whereby residents in the frontier region who work in another Member State are taxed substantially more heavily than residents who do not live in the frontier region and who also work in another Member State?

               4.

               Can a resident of a Member State who performs his professional activities almost completely in another Member State (A) rely on the principle of the ‘most favourable treatment’ where the Member State provides for a more favourable fiscal treatment of other residents who also perform their professional activities almost completely in a third Member State (B)?

               5.

               Does Article 39 EC or any other provision preclude a State of residence from refusing a tax deduction of a sickness insurance premium by a resident who performs his professional activities almost completely in another Member State where a similar right of deduction is in fact available both to inhabitants of the State of residence and to those in the State of employment who make no use of the freedom of movement for workers?

               6.

               Does Article 39 EC or any other provision preclude the State of residence from making the tax deduction of contributions to sickness insurance conditional inter alia on this sickness insurance being concluded with a local sickness insurance fund recognised by the State of residence, when, according to the legislation of the State of residence, it is legally impossible for inhabitants of the State of residence who use their right of freedom of movement for workers to conclude supplementary sickness insurance with one of those sickness insurance funds?

      (1)  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed person and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ English Special Edition (1971)(II) p. 416).


title: Case T-78/11 P: Order of the General Court of 4 December 2012 — Lenz v Commission (Appeal — Public service — Officials — Social security — Reimbursement of the costs of treatment provided by a ‘Heilpraktiker’ — Obligation to state reasons — Distortion of the facts)

text:
               2.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/17

         Order of the General Court of 4 December 2012 — Lenz v Commission
   (Case T-78/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Public service - Officials - Social security - Reimbursement of the costs of treatment provided by a ‘Heilpraktiker’ - Obligation to state reasons - Distortion of the facts)
   2013/C 32/26
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Erika Lenz (Osnabrück, Germany) (represented by: V. Lenz and J. Römer, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and B. Eggers, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 14 December 2010 in Case F-80/09 Lenz v Commission [2010] ECR II-A-1-0000, and seeking that that judgment be set aside

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Ms Erika Lenz is to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the present proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 103, 2.4.2011.


title: Case C-449/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d’appello di Genova (Italy) lodged on 11 August 2016 — Kerly Del Rosario Martinez Silva v Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS), Comune di Genova

text:
               7.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 410/8

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d’appello di Genova (Italy) lodged on 11 August 2016 — Kerly Del Rosario Martinez Silva v Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS), Comune di Genova
   (Case C-449/16)
   (2016/C 410/08)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte d’appello di Genova

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Kerly Del Rosario Martinez Silva

      Defendants: Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS), Comune di Genova

      Questions referred

               1)

               Does a benefit such as that provided for in Article 65 of Law No 448/1998, known as ‘assegno ai nuclei familiari con almeno tre figli minori’ (allowance for households with at least three minor children), constitute a family benefit within the meaning of Article 3(1)(j) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004? (1)

               2)

               If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, does the principle of equal treatment laid down in Article 12(1)(e) of Directive 2011/98/EU (2) preclude legislation, such as the Italian legislation at issue, under which a third-country worker in possession of a ‘single work permit’ (which is valid for a period of more than six months) is not eligible for the ‘assegno per i nuclei familiari con almeno tre figli minori’, even though she lives with three or more minor children and her income is below the statutory limit?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1).

      (2)  Directive 2011/98/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on a single application procedure for a single permit for third-country nationals to reside and work in the territory of a Member State and on a common set of rights for third-country workers legally residing in a Member State (OJ 2011 L 343, p. 1).


title: Case T-96/03: Action brought on 10 March 2003 by Manel Camós Grau against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 112/44             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                       10.5.2003
—    Manifest error of assessment as regards the Community               —     order the Commission to pay him by way of compen-
     case-law and rules on the requirement laid down in                        sation for non-material damage provisionally assessed, ex
     Article 87(1) of the Treaty that aid should be granted by                 aequo et bono, at EUR 10 000;
     the State or through State resources. It is asserted in this
     respect that nothing in Community case-law or in the
     legislation on State aid suggests that it is necessary that         —     order the Commission to pay the applicant compensation
     the resources to which the domestic authorities waive                     for damage to his career, provisionally, of EUR 1;
     their right should be formally recognised in the State
     budget.                                                             —     order the Commission to reimburse the expenses incurred
                                                                               by the applicant in preparing his defence in the context
—    Breach of the principle of sound administration, since the                of the inquiry and his administrative complaint against
     Commission did not raise objections to the disputed                       the decision of 17 May 2002;
     measure or initiate the formal investigation procedure
     laid down in Article 88(2) EC.                                      —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
The applicants also allege that the Commission failed to
comply with the obligation to state reasons.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         The applicant is an official of the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities. Between 1993 and 1997, he assisted his
                                                                         immediate superior who was a member of the Executive
                                                                         Committee of the Institute for European-Latin American
                                                                         Relations (IRELA). When an internal inquiry was opened by
                                                                         the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF) into the IRELA, the
Action brought on 10 March 2003 by Manel Camós Grau
                                                                         applicant was informed that it was possible that he too was
  against the Commission of the European Communities                     implicated in financial irregularities. The applicant asked the
                                                                         director of OLAF to find out as soon as possible whether there
                                                                         was any possible conflict of interest with regard to one of the
                        (Case T-96/03)                                   investigators and if appropriate to take the necessary steps to
                                                                         guarantee the objectivity of the inquiry. By the contested
                                                                         decision, the director of OLAF decided to remove from
                       (2003/C 112/82)                                   the inquiry the investigator concerned but left standing
                                                                         investigative measures and decisions proposed and adopted by
                                                                         him or to which he contributed.
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         In support of his claims, the applicant relies on four pleas in
                                                                         law:
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               —     Infringement of Article 25(2) of the Staff Regulations
European Communities on 10 March 2003 by Manel Camós                           inasmuch as the contested decision was not notified to
Grau, residing in Brussels, represented by Marc-Albert Lucas,                  him and provides an inadequate statement of reasons;
lawyer.
                                                                         —     Breach of the duty to provide evidence of the proper
                                                                               conduct of the inquiry;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—    annul the OLAF decision of 17 May 2002 removing one                 —     Manifest error of assessment in that the reason for the
                                                                               contested decision appears to be that the investigator
     of the investigators from the inquiry by the Office into
     the IRELA inasmuch as it leaves standing investigative                    concerned did not participate either in the monitoring or
     measures and decisions on its conduct adopted by the                      the handling of the case in question;
     investigator or to which he contributed, without re-
     examining or annulling them or requiring new inquiries;             —     Breach of the principle that inquiries should be fair and
                                                                               impartial.
—    annul the OLAF decision of 29 November 2002 implicitly
     rejecting the applicant’s administrative complaint of
     29 July 2002 against the decision of 17 May 2002;


title: Action brought on 31 October 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium (Case C-358/96)

text:
No C 370/ 10               EN |                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       7 . 12 . 96
seised second declines jurisdiction, despite the parties in the               Action brought on 31 October 1996 by the Commission of
two cases not being strictly identical , on the ground that the               the European Communities against the Kingdom of
procedural law aipplicable before the court seised first                                                        Belgium
' restricts the opportunity for an insurer to be party to                                                 ( Case C-357/96 )
proceedings in which the insured is involved' so that the
insurer of the vessel is in fact also involved, through the                                                 ( 96/C 370/23 )
intermediary of the insured, in the case brought first ?
                                                                              An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
                                                                              before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                              on 31 October 1996 by the Commission of the European
                                                                              Communities, represented by Gotz zur Hausen, Legal
                                                                              Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Action brought on 31 October 1996 by the Commission of                        Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
the European Communities against the Kingdom of                               Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                  Belgium
                            ( Case C-356/96 )                                 The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                              the Court should :
                              ( 96/C 370/22 )
                                                                              — declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                                 and administrative measures necessary in order to
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                              comply with Commission Directive 94/ 15/EEC of
on 31 October 1996 by the Commission of the European                                 15 April 1994 ( ] ) adapting to technical progress for the
Communities, represented by Gotz zur Hausen, Legal                                   first time Council Directive 90/220/EEC ( 2 ) on the
Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in                             deliberate release into the environment of genetically
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,                                 modified organisms, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                                            to fulfil its obligations under that Directive,
                                                                              — order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .
The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should :
                                                                              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations                     The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
      and administrative measures necessary in order to                       Case C-356/96 ( 3 ); the time limit for transposition expired
      comply with Commission Directive 91 /410/EEC of                         on 30 June 1994 .
      22 July 1991 ( ] ) adapting to technical progress for the
       14th time Council Directive 67/548/EEC ( 2 ) on the                    (!) OJ No L 103 , 22 . 4 . 1994, p . 20 .
      approximation of laws, regulations and administrative                   ( 2 ) OJNoL 117, 8 . 5 . 1990 , p . 15 .
      provisions relating to the classification, packaging and                ( 3 ) See Case C-356/96 above .
      labelling of dangerous substances, and/or by failing to
      communicate those measures, the Kingdom of Belgium
      has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive,
— order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                              Action brought on 31 October 1996 by the Commission of
                                                                              the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                                Belgium
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                                         Case C-358/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 370/24 )
In view of the binding nature of directives, as provided for
in the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty, and
in view of the first paragraph of Article 5 of that Treaty,                   An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
Member States to whom a directive is addressed are obliged                    before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
to achieve the results pursued by it within the time limit                    on 31 October 1996 by the Commission of the European
prescribed therein, that is to say, to transpose its provisions               Communities, represented by Gotz zur Hausen, Legal
into national law in such a way that it produces its full                     Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
effect as soon as the time limit for transposition expires.                   Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
That time limit expired on 1 August 1992 but the Kingdom                      Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
of Belgium has not adopted the necessary measures .
                                                                              The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                              the Court should :
f 1 ) OJ No L 228 , 17. 8 . 1991 , p . 67.
( 2 ) OJ , English Special Edition ( 1967 ), p. 234 .
                                                                              — declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                                and administrative measures necessary in order to
 ---pagebreak--- 7 . 12 . 96             EN 1                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 370/ 11
     comply with Commission Directive 93/90/EEC of                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     29 October 1993 ( : ) concerning the list of substances
     referred to in the fifth indent of Article 13 ( 1 ) of             The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
     Council Directive 67/548/EEC ( 2 ) and/or by failing to            Case C-356/9 6 ( 3 ); the time-limit for transposition expired
     communicate those measures, the Kingdom of Belgium                 on 31 October 1993 .
     has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive,
                                                                        (') OJ No L 277, 10 . 1 1 . 1993 , p . 33 .
                                                                        ( ~ ) OJ , English Special Edition ( 1967 ), p. 234 .
— order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .                       ( M See Case C-356/96 above .
                                                       COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              Netherlands authorities — the Court of First Instance
                       of 22 October 1996
                                                                        (Third Chamber, Extended Composition ), composed of:
                                                                        C. R Briët, President, B. Vesterdorf, P. Lindh, A. Potocki
in Case T-154/94 :        Comité des Salines de France et               and J. D. Cooke, Judges, J. Palacio Gonzalez,
Compagnie des Salins du Midi et des Salines de l'Est v.                 Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                        22 October 1996 in which it:
         Commission of the European Communities ( 1 )
(State aid — General regional aid scheme — Letter from the
Commission concerning aid — Action for annulment —                      1 . dismisses the action as inadmissible ;
                            Inadmissible)
                           ( 96/C 370/25 )                              2 . orders the applicants to pay the costs, including those
                                                                              incurred by Frima B V;
                 (Language of the case: French)                         3 . orders Salt Union Ltd, Südwestdeutsche Salzwerke AG ,
                                                                              and Verein Deutsche Salzindustrie eV to bear their own
                                                                              costs .
In Case T- 154/94 : Comite des Salines de France, established           (') OJ No C 161 , 11.6 . 1994 .
in Paris, and Compagnie des Salins du Midi et des Salines
de l'Est SA, established in Paris, represented by Dominique
Voillemot, of the Paris Bar, and Peter Verloop, of the
Amsterdam Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the Chambers of Jacques Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe,
supported by Salt Union Ltd, established in Cheshire                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
( United Kingdom ), represented by Jonathan Scott and Craig
Pouncey, Solicitors, with an address for service in                                               of 22 October 1996
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Georges Baden,                            in Joined Cases T-79/95 and T-80/95 : Société Nationale
8 Boulevard Royal, and Südwestdeutsche Salzwerke AG,                    des Chemins de Fer Français and British Railways Board v.
established in Heilbronn ( Germany ), and Verein Deutsche                          Commission of the European Communities ( 1 )
Salzindustrie eV, established in Bonn ( Germany ),
represented by Thomas Jestaedt and Barbel Altes,                        (Competition — Channel Tunnel — Reservation of SO % of
Rechtsanwälte, Dusseldorf, and Walter Klosterfelde and                  tunnel capacity for two railway companies — Restrictions
Karsten Metzlaff, Rechtsanwälte, Hamburg, with an                          on competition — Exemption — Access for third parties)
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                                                 ( 96/C 370/26 )
Philippe Dupont, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, v. Commission
of the European Communities ( Agents : initially Giuliano
Marenco and Jean-Paul Keppenne, then Giuliano Marenco                               (Language of the case: English and French)
and Paul Nemitz ), supported by Frima BV, established in
The Hague ( Netherlands ), represented by Tom Ottervanger
and Gerrit Vriezen , of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address              In Joined Cases T-79/95 and T-80/95 : Societe Nationale des
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Carlos                     Chemins de Fer Français, established in Paris, represented
Zeyen, 67 Rue Ermesinde — application for annulment of                  by Barbara Rapp-Jung and Nathalie Flandin, of the Brussels
the decision allegedly contained in a letter addressed by the           Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Commission on 7 February 1994 to Comite des Salines de                  Chambers of Victor Elvinger, 31 Rue d'Eich, and British
France concerning aid granted to Frima BV by the                        Railways Board, established in London , represented by


title: Case C-510/08: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 April 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Vera Mattner v Finanzamt Velbert (Free movement of capital — Articles 56 EC and 58 EC — Gift tax — Land on which a building has been constructed — Allowance to be set against the taxable value — Different treatment of residents and non-residents)

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/10

      Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 April 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Vera Mattner v Finanzamt Velbert
      (Case C-510/08) (1)

      (Free movement of capital - Articles 56 EC and 58 EC - Gift tax - Land on which a building has been constructed - Allowance to be set against the taxable value - Different treatment of residents and non-residents)
      (2010/C 161/12)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Vera Mattner

         Defendant: Finanzamt Velbert

         Re:

      Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Interpretation of Articles 39 EC and 43 EC and of Article 56 EC in conjunction with Article 58 EC — National legislation on the taxation of gifts of land fixing the tax-free part of the value of the land at EUR 1 100 if the donor and the acquirer are resident in another Member State, whereas the tax-free part is EUR 205 000 if either the donor or the acquirer is resident in national territory.

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 56 EC in conjunction with Article 58 EC must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that, for the calculation of gift tax, the allowance to be set against the taxable value in the case of a gift of immovable property in that State is smaller where the donor and the donee were resident in another Member State on the date of the gift than the allowance which would have applied if at least one of them had been resident in the former Member State on that date.

         (1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.


title: Case T-581/15: Action brought on 1 October 2015 — Syndial v Commission

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/71

         Action brought on 1 October 2015 — Syndial v Commission
   (Case T-581/15)
   (2015/C 398/85)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Syndial SpA — Attività Diversificate (San Donato Milanese, Italy) (represented by: L. Acquarone and S. Grassi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should (i) annul and/or alter the note of the European Commission — Secretariat-General Ref. Ares (20015)3238796 of 03/08/2015, headed ‘Decision of the Secretary General on behalf of the Commission pursuant to Article 4 of the Implementing Rules to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001’, concerning the ‘Confirmatory application for access to documents under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — GESTDEM 2015/2796’, confirming the refusal of the Commission’s Directorate-General for Environment, by note ENV.D.2/MC/vf/ARES(2015) of 16 June 2015, to grant the application for access to documents made by Syndial SpA by note INAMB-10/15 of 6 May 2015, sent by certified e-mail on 8 May 2015, and, as a consequence, (ii) find that Syndial is entitled to acquaint itself with the documentation relating to infringement procedure No 2009/4426 and therefore order full or partial disclosure of the documents requested in the application for access made by abovementioned note INAMB-10/15 of 6 May 2015, sent by certified e-mail on 8 May 2015, and/or find that Syndial has the right to be formally heard by the Commission in order to clarify and confirm the information that underpins the infringement procedure in question.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement and/or incorrect application of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

                           —

                           The applicant submits that there has in the present case been an incorrect assessment of the limit to the exception relied on by the Commission to refuse access to the documents relating to infringement procedure No 2009/4426, that limit consisting in the existence of ‘an overriding public interest in disclosure’, to which the final part of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 refers.

                           —

                           The reclamation plan authorised and now completed, which was to be directly implemented by Syndial (the owner of the land), on the site at Cengio, fully complies with Community principles relating to the remediation and rehabilitation of areas affected by historical contamination.

                           —

                           The position adopted by the Italian Republic in procedure No 2009/4426 appears, unexpectedly, to surrender the public interest pursued at national level by uncritically accepting the Commission’s complaints, forgetting that the procedure which culminated in authorisation of the reclamation plan for the site followed the steps laid down at national level for the purpose of obtaining authorisation — and did so before the Ministry which is now challenging its validity. There is therefore an important and overriding public interest within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Regulation 1049/2001 in allowing Syndial to ascertain whether any checks are actually being carried out as to whether there is compliance with Community principles.

                           —

                           Syndial’s requests do not pursue a private interest — which would in any event be legitimate — but rather the, more significant, public interest in ensuring that the propriety and proper conduct of the Community procedure in question and of the domestic administrative procedure are effectively protected (matters which are expressly protected, as regards the Community procedure, under Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and, as regards the domestic administrative procedure, under Article 97 of the Constitution of the Italian Republic): that interest is related not only to the rights of defence of the individual (directly concerned by the effects of the decisions adopted in the infringement procedure) but, in particular, to the fundamental right to environmental information which is confirmed by the principles of EU law (Article 191(2) and (3), first subparagraph, TFEU in conjunction with the principle in Article 11 TFEU, also given effect by the accession of the European Union to the Aarhus Convention of 27 June 1998).

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement and/or incorrect application of Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. Unlawful refusal to grant partial access

                           —

                           The general presumption of non-disclosure provided for in the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 ‘does not exclude the right of interested parties to demonstrate that a specific document disclosure of which has been requested is not covered by that presumption, or that there is an overriding public interest in disclosure of the document by virtue of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001’ (judgment in Sea Handling v Commission, T-456/13, EU:T:2015:185, paragraph 64).

                           —

                           The present case involves a request for documents whose disclosure is not contrary to any public interest but in fact serves that interest, inasmuch as it is only if access to those documents is granted that it will be possible to obtain information that may be used not only to rebut from a technical and legal point of view the complaints raised in the infringement procedure but also to demonstrate the legitimacy of the procedure that has, in full agreement with the competent bodies, been followed in order to select the most appropriate remediation plan for the former ACNA site at Cengio, in accordance with the Community principles concerning the rehabilitation of sites affected by historical contamination and the sustainability of environmental measures, and to implement that plan.

                           —

                           Access could have been limited to indicating the documents produced in the procedure by the Italian Republic, following exclusion of the other documents in the case-file.


title: Case C-556/07: Action brought on 13 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

text:
               9.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/20

         Action brought on 13 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
   (Case C-556/07)
   (2008/C 37/30)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Nolin, M. van Heezik, Agents)

      Defendant: French Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing sufficiently to monitor, inspect and supervise fishing activities, in particular in the light of the prohibition of drift nets for the capture of certain species, and by not ensuring that appropriate measures against those responsible for infringements of the Community legislation on the use of drift nets were taken, the French Republic failed in its obligations under Articles 2 and 31(1) and (2) of Regulation No 2847/1993 (1) and Articles 23(1) and (2), 24 and 25(1) and (2) of Regulation No 2371/2002 (2);

               —

               order the French Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By its action, the Commission alleges that the defendant applied the Community legislation on fisheries incorrectly. That incorrect application consists, first, in the fact that the French authorities did not consider a ‘thonaille’ (a tuna gillnet) to be a drag net although, by reason of its technical characteristics, the thonaille is one and, as such, is prohibited by Community legislation. The fact that the thonaille can be stabilised with the aid of a floating anchor is, in that regard, irrelevant inasmuch as that stabilisation does not imply that the thonaille cannot drift with sea currents or the wind, but only that it is held by floats and weights in order to optimise its efficiency and to prevent it lying horizontally just below the surface.
   The failure to fulfil obligations consists, second, in the lack of an effective monitoring system in order to enforce the ban on drift nets for the capture of certain species and the lack of follow-up in the pursuit of breaches established. The monitoring solely concerns whether national legislation, which is more flexible than the Community legislation, is complied with and the penalties imposed for breach of the legislation are light and of little dissuasive effect.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy (OJ 1993 L 261, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy (OJ 2002 L 358, p. 59).


title: Case C-583/13 P: Appeal brought on 15 November 2013 by Deutsche Bahn and Others against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 6 September 2013 in Joined Cases T-289/11, T-290/11 and T-521/11 Deutsche Bahn and Others v European Commission

text:
               25.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/9

         Appeal brought on 15 November 2013 by Deutsche Bahn and Others against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 6 September 2013 in Joined Cases T-289/11, T-290/11 and T-521/11 Deutsche Bahn and Others v European Commission
   (Case C-583/13 P)
   2014/C 24/17
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellants: Deutsche Bahn AG, DB Mobility Logistics AG, DB Energie GmbH, DB Netz AG, DB Schenker Rail GmbH, DB Schenker Rail Deutschland AG, Deutsche Umschlaggesellschaft Schiene-Straße mbH (DUSS) (represented by: W. Deselaers, E. Venot, J. Brückner, lawyers)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of Spain, European Council, EFTA Surveillance Authority

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 in Joined Cases T-289/11, T-290/11 and T-521/11;

               —

               annul the Commission’s decisions C(2011) 1774 of 14 March 2011, C(2011) 2365 of 30 March 2011 and C(2011) 5230 of 14 July 2011, which ordered investigations of Deutschen Bahn AG and all of its subsidiaries (Cases COMP/39.678 and COMP/39.731) pursuant to Article 20(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 1/2003;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and of the appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellants base their appeal on four grounds of appeal:

               First, the General Court has misinterpreted and misapplied the fundamental right to inviolability of one’s premises and the settled case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. Specifically in the context of the scope of the infringement of that fundamental right and the risk of irreparable harm, it is disproportionate for the Commission, which also acts as the investigative authority and has broad discretion, carries out investigations without prior authorisation from a court.

               Second, the General Court has misinterpreted and misapplied the fundamental right to effective judicial review. Mere ex post judicial review does not offer the undertakings concerned effective judicial review of Commission investigations.

               Third, the General Court has incorrectly categorised the documents relating to alleged infringements of competition law as being chance discoveries, which were obtained in the context of the investigation outside of the scope of the inquiry, although those documents were subject to a prohibition on use. The Commission's agents had been informed before the start of that investigation of suspicions concerning an area outside of the subject-matter of the investigation. Thereby the Commission artificially created the chance and unlawfully potentially broadened the exception to chance discoveries established by the Court of Justice (1) which must be interpreted restrictively.

               Finally, the General Court misapplied the rules on the burden of proof. It appears to be logical or at the least it cannot be excluded that certain documents were obtained as apparent ‘chance discoveries’ only because of prior unlawful information from Commission agents, that is, concerning an area outside of the subject-matter of the investigation. Since it is impossible for the appellants to establish the proof of such causality and since that circumstance is not imputable to them, a reversal of the burden of proof whereby it is for the Commission to adduce the evidence that those documents were in fact the result of a chance discovery should be required.

      (1)  Judgment of the Court in Case 85/87 Dow Benelux v Commission [1989] ECR-3137.


title: Case C-92/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — RWE Vertrieb AG v Verbraucherzentrale Nordrhein-Westfalen eV (Directive 2003/55/EC — Internal market in natural gas — Directive 93/13/EEC — Articles 1(2) and 3 to 5 — Contracts between suppliers and consumers — General conditions — Unfair terms — Unilateral alteration by the supplier of the price of the service — Reference to mandatory legislation designed for another category of consumers — Applicability of Directive 93/13/EEC — Obligation of use of plain and intelligible language and transparency)

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/3

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — RWE Vertrieb AG v Verbraucherzentrale Nordrhein-Westfalen eV
   (Case C-92/11) (1)

   (Directive 2003/55/EC - Internal market in natural gas - Directive 93/13/EEC - Articles 1(2) and 3 to 5 - Contracts between suppliers and consumers - General conditions - Unfair terms - Unilateral alteration by the supplier of the price of the service - Reference to mandatory legislation designed for another category of consumers - Applicability of Directive 93/13/EEC - Obligation of use of plain and intelligible language and transparency)
   2013/C 156/04
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: RWE Vertrieb AG

      Defendant: Verbraucherzentrale Nordrhein-Westfalen eV

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 1(2) and, in conjunction with point 1(j) and the second sentence of point 2(b) of the annex, of Articles 3 and 5 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p 29) — Interpretation of Article 3(3) of, in conjunction with points (b) and (c) of Annex A to, Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC (OJ 2003 L 176, p. 57) — Term establishing the right of the seller or supplier to vary unilaterally the price of the service by reference to binding rules designed to apply to a separate category of consumers — Applicability of Directive 93/13/EEC — Requirements relating to the obligation to use plain and intelligible wording and to the obligation of transparency

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 1(2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that that directive applies to provisions in general terms and conditions, incorporated into contracts concluded between a supplier and a consumer, which reproduce a rule of national law applicable to another category of contracts and are not subject to the national legislation concerned.

               2.

               Articles 3 and 5 of Directive 93/13 in conjunction with Article 3(3) of Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to assess whether a standard contractual term by which a supply undertaking reserves the right to vary the charge for the supply of gas complies with the requirements of good faith, balance and transparency laid down by those directives, it is of fundamental importance:

                           —

                           whether the contract sets out in transparent fashion the reason for and method of the variation of those charges, so that the consumer can foresee, on the basis of clear, intelligible criteria, the alterations that may be made to those charges. The lack of information on the point before the contract is concluded cannot, in principle, be compensated for by the mere fact that consumers will, during the performance of the contract, be informed in good time of a variation of the charges and of their right to terminate the contract if they do not wish to accept the variation; and

                           —

                           whether the right of termination conferred on the consumer can actually be exercised in the specific circumstances.

                     It is for the national court to carry out that assessment with regard to all the circumstances of the particular case, including all the general terms and conditions of the consumer contracts of which the term at issue forms part.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 16.7.2011.


title: Case C-476/08 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 December 2009 — Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Commission (Appeal — Regulations (EC, Euratom) Nos 1605/2002 and 2342/2002 — Public contracts awarded by the Community institutions on their own account — Error in the evaluation committee’s report — Obligation to state reasons for the rejection of the tender’s bid)

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/14

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 December 2009 — Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Commission
   (Case C-476/08 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Regulations (EC, Euratom) Nos 1605/2002 and 2342/2002 - Public contracts awarded by the Community institutions on their own account - Error in the evaluation committee’s report - Obligation to state reasons for the rejection of the tender’s bid)
   2010/C 24/23
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (represented by: (N. Korogiannakis, dikigoros)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: M. Wilderspin and E. Manhaeve, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 10 September 2008 in Case T-59/05 Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v Commission of the European Communities by which the Court of First Instance dismissed an action for the annulment of the Commission’s decision of 23 November 2004 rejecting the tender submitted by the appellant in the tendering procedure relating to the provision of development, maintenance and related support services for the financial information systems of the Directorate-General for Agriculture and of the decision awarding the contract to another tenderer — Obligation to state reasons for the rejection of a submitted tender

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 19, 24.1.2009.


title: Case C-336/07: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Hannover — Germany) — Kabel Deutschland Vertrieb und Service GmbH & Co. KG v Niedersächsische Landesmedienanstalt für privaten Rundfunk (Directive 2002/22/EC — Article 31(1) — Reasonable must carry obligations — National law requiring analogue cable network operators to provide access to their cable networks to all television programmes allowed to be broadcast terrestrially — Principle of proportionality)

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/14

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Hannover — Germany) — Kabel Deutschland Vertrieb und Service GmbH & Co. KG v Niedersächsische Landesmedienanstalt für privaten Rundfunk
   (Case C-336/07) (1)

   (Directive 2002/22/EC - Article 31(1) - Reasonable ‘must carry’ obligations - National law requiring analogue cable network operators to provide access to their cable networks to all television programmes allowed to be broadcast terrestrially - Principle of proportionality)
   (2009/C 44/23)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Verwaltungsgericht Hannover
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Kabel Deutschland Vertrieb und Service GmbH & Co. KG

      Defendant: Niedersächsische Landesmedienanstalt für privaten Rundfunk

      Intervening parties: Norddeutscher Rundfunk, Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen, ARTE GEIE, Bloomberg LP, Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk, MTV Networks Germany GmbH, successor in law to VIVA Plus Fernsehen GmbH, VIVA Music Fernsehen GmbH & Co. KG, MTV Networks Germany GmbH, successor in law to MTV Networks GmbH & Co. oHG, Westdeutscher Rundfunk, RTL Television GmbH, RTL II Fernsehen GmbH & Co. KG, VOX Film und Fernseh-GmbH & Co. KG, RTL Disney Fernsehen GmbH & Co. KG, SAT. 1 Satelliten-Fernsehen GmbH and Others, Regio.TV GmbH, Eurosport SA, TM-TV GmbH & Co. KG, ONYX Television GmbH, Radio Bremen, Hessischer Rundfunk, Nederland 2, Hamburg 1 Fernsehen Beteiligungs GmbH & Co. KG, Turner Broadcasting System Deutschland GmbH, n-tv Nachrichtenfernsehen GmbH & Co. KG, Bayerischer Rundfunk, Deutsches Sportfernsehen GmbH, NBC Europe GmbH, BBC World, Mediendienst Borkum — Kurverwaltung NSHB Borkum GmbH, Friesischer Rundfunk GmbH, Home Shopping Europe GmbH & Co. KG, Euro News SA, Reise-TV GmbH & Co. KG, SKF Spielekanal Fernsehen GmbH, TV 5 Europe, DMAX TV GmbH & Co. KG, formerly XXP TV — Das Metropolenprogramm GmbH & Co. KG, RTL Shop GmbH
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Hannover — Interpretation of Article 31(1) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51) — National legislation which requires analogue cable network operators to provide access on their cable networks to all the television programmes approved for terrestrial broadcasting and provides that, in the event of a shortage of channels, the competent national authority has to establish an order of priority of applicants which results in full use of the channels available to the cable network operator concerned.
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 31(1) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) is to be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which requires a cable operator to provide access to its analogue cable network to television channels and services that are already being broadcast terrestrially, thereby resulting in the utilisation of more than half of the channels available on that network, and which provides, in the event of a shortage of channels available, for an order of priority of applicants which results in full utilisation of the channels available on that network, provided that those obligations do not give rise to unreasonable economic consequences, which is a matter for the national court to establish;

               2.

               The concept of ‘television services’ within the meaning of Article 31(1) of Directive 2002/22 includes services of television broadcasters or providers of media services, such as teleshopping, provided that the conditions laid down in that provision are met, which is a matter for the national court to establish.

      (1)  OJ C 247, 20.10.2007.


title: Case C-351/05: Order of the President of the Court of 31 May 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Estonia

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/33

         Order of the President of the Court of 31 May 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Estonia
   (Case C-351/05) (1)

   (2006/C 224/68)

      Language of the case: Estonian

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

      (1)  OJ C 281, 12.11.2005.


title: Case T-100/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 September 2006 — CFE v Commission (Action for annulment — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Decision 2004/813/EC — List of sites of Community importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region — Person directly affected — Inadmissibility)

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/48

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 September 2006 — CFE v Commission
   (Case T-100/05) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora - Decision 2004/813/EC - List of sites of Community importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region - Person directly affected - Inadmissibility)
   (2006/C 294/102)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Compagnie d'entreprises CFE SA (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: B. Louveaux and J. van Ypersele, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. van Beek and F. Simonetti, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2004/813/EC of 7 December 2004 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, the list of sites of Community importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region (OJ 2004 L 387, p. 1)
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               In addition to bearing its own costs, the applicant is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 30.04.2005.


               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/44

         Removal from the Register of Case T-311/99 (1)

   (2004/C 228/103)

      (Language of the case: Dutch)

   By order of 11 May 2004, the President of the Second Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-311/99, Tankstation Haarhuis B.V., supported by the Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.


title: Case T-266/01: Action brought on 22 October 2001 by Confederación Empresarial Vasca against Commission of the European Communities

text:
5.1.2002               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 3/41
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
The appointing authority applied Article 46 of the Staff                 The applicant is challenging Commission Decision
Regulations and did not evaluate the applicant’s professional            C(2001)1759 final of 11 July 2001 in so far as it characterises
experience in order to establish whether it would be possible            as State aid incompatible with the common market the tax
for Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations to be applied in order        reductions under Articles 52 to 56 of the Ley Foral (Regional
to appoint him in Grade A 4 instead of Grade A 5.                        Law) 24/1996 del impuesto sobre sociedades (Regional Law
                                                                         on corporation tax) of 30 December 1996 (Boletı́n Oficial de
                                                                         Navarra No 159 of 31 December 1996) which provide for a
                                                                         reduction of 50 % on the aforementioned tax for undertakings
The appointing authority should have calculated, on the basis
                                                                         which take up business in the Autonomous Community of
of the second paragraph of Article 32(2), his additional
professional experience and placed him at Step 2, and should             Navarra after the entry into force of that Law, provided they
                                                                         invest a minimum of PTA 100 million (EUR 601 012) and
have granted him additional seniority of 5,5 months at Step 2.
                                                                         create more than 10 new jobs.
Deficient statement of reasons.                                          The pleas in law and main arguments on which the applicant
                                                                         relies are similar to those put forward in Case T-225/01.
Action brought on 22 October 2001 by Confederación
Empresarial Vasca against Commission of the European                     Action brought on 22 October 2001 by Confederación
                          Communities                                    Empresarial Vasca against Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
                         (Case T-265/01)
                                                                                (Case T-266/01)
                          (2002/C 3/70)
                                                                                (2002/C 3/71)
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
European Communities on 22 October 2001 by Confedera-                    ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
ción Empresarial Vasca, whose registered office is at Bilbao            European Communities on 22 October 2001 by Confedera-
(Spain, represented by Marcos Araujo Boyd, lawyer.                       ción Empresarial Vasca, whose registered office is at Bilbao
                                                                         (Spain, represented by Marcos Araujo Boyd, lawyer.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the defendant of 11 July 2001 on             —     annul the decision of the defendant of 11 July 2001 on
      the system of State aid applied by Spain to undertakings                 the system of State aid applied by Spain to undertakings
      in Alava in the shape of a tax credit of 45 % of the cost                in Vizcaya in the shape of a tax credit of 45 % of the cost
      of the investment;                                                       of the investment;
—     in the alternative, annul Articles 3 and 4 of the decision         —     in the alternative, annul Articles 3 and 4 of the decision
      of the defendant of 11 July 2001 on the system of State                  of the defendant of 11 July 2001 on the system of State
      aid applied by Spain to undertakings in Alava in the                     aid applied by Spain to undertakings in Vizcaya in the
      shape of a tax credit of 45 % of the cost of the investment,             shape of a tax credit of 45 % of the cost of the investment,
      inasmuch as the obligation to recover the amounts not                    inasmuch as the obligation to recover the amounts
      levied by the Alava regional revenue authorities pursuant                not levied by the Vizcaya regional revenue authorities
      to the disputed fiscal legislation is unjustified;                       pursuant to the disputed fiscal legislation is unjustified;
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                             —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 3/42                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         5.1.2002
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant is challenging Commission Decision                         The applicant contests Commission Decision C(2001) 1760
C(2001)1765 final of 11 July 2001 in so far as it characterises          final of 11 July 2001 declaring incompatible with the common
as State aid incompatible with the common market the tax                 market the tax reductions under Article 26 of Norma Foral
reductions under the fourth addendum to Norma Foral                      (Regional Law) No 24/1996 of 5 July 1996 on corporation tax
(Regional Law) No 7/1996 of 26 December 1996, and the                    (Boletı́n Oficial del Territorio Histórico de Alava of 9 August
tenth addendum to Norma Foral 4/1998 of 2 December 1998,                 1996), which provides for a reduction of 99 %, 75 %, 50 %
which provide for a tax credit of 45 % of the investment in              and 25 % of the taxable basis for the aforementioned tax
new fixed material assets in excess of PTA 2 500 million                 applicable during the first four tax years for undertakings
(EUR 15 025 303) made by undertakings in the Territorio                  which set up business in the Territorio Histórico de Alava with
Histórico de Vizcaya.                                                   effect from the entry into force of the Law, provided that they
                                                                         have disbursed capital amounting to more than PTA 20 million
                                                                         (EUR 120 202), invest more than PTA 80 million
                                                                         (EUR 430 810) and create more than 10 new jobs.
The pleas in law and main arguments on which the applicant
relies are similar to those put forward in Case T-225/01.
                                                                         The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the
                                                                         applicant are identical with those put forward in Case
                                                                         T-225/01.
Action brought on 22 October 2001 by Confederación
Empresarial Vasca against Commission of the European
                           Communities                                   Action brought on 22 October 2001 by Confederación
                                                                         Empresarial Vasca against Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
                          (Case T-267/01)
                                                                                (Case T-268/01)
                           (2002/C 3/72)
                                                                                (2002/C 3/73)
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 22 October 2001 by Confedera-                    European Communities on 22 October 2001 by Confedera-
ción Empresarial Vasca, whose registered office is at Bilbao            ción Empresarial Vasca, whose registered office is at Bilbao
(Spain), represented by Marcos Araujo Boyd, lawyer.                      (Spain), represented by Marcos Araujo Boyd, lawyer.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —     annul the defendant’s decision of 11 July 2001 on the
—     annul the defendant’s decision of 11 July 2001 on the
                                                                               system of State aid applied by Spain to certain newly
      system of State aid applied by Spain to certain newly
                                                                               created undertakings in Vizcaya (Spain);
      created undertakings in Alava (Spain);
                                                                         —     in the alternative, annul Articles 3 and 4 of the defendant’s
—     in the alternative, annul Articles 3 and 4 of the defendant’s            decision of 11 July 2001 on the system of State aid
      decision of 11 July 2001 on the system of State aid                      applied by Spain to certain newly created undertakings in
      applied by Spain to certain newly created undertakings in                Vizcaya, inasmuch as the obligation to recover the
      Alava, inasmuch as the obligation to recover the amounts                 amounts not levied by the regional revenue authorities
      not levied by the regional revenue authorities of Alava                  of Vizcaya pursuant to the disputed tax legislation is
      pursuant to the disputed tax legislation is unjustified;                 unjustified;
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                             —     order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-215/10: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom)) — Pacific World Limited, FDD International Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Moulded plastic false nail sets — Validity of Regulation (EC) No 1417/2007 — Other articles of plastics (heading 3926 ) — Manicure or pedicure preparations (heading 3304 ) — Manicure or pedicure sets and instruments (heading 8214 ))

text:
               8.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 298/7

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom)) — Pacific World Limited, FDD International Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
   (Case C-215/10) (1)

   (Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Moulded plastic false nail sets - Validity of Regulation (EC) No 1417/2007 - Other articles of plastics (heading 3926) - Manicure or pedicure preparations (heading 3304) - Manicure or pedicure sets and instruments (heading 8214))
   2011/C 298/12
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Pacific World Limited, FDD International Limited

      Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — Interpretation of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1417/2007 of 28 November 2007 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature — Validity of the classification of moulded plastic false nails under heading 3926 90 97 (Other articles of plastics or other materials)

      Operative part of the judgment

   Commission Regulation (EC) No 1417/2007 of 28 November 2007 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature is valid in so far as it classifies the false nails and, thereby, the false nail sets described in its annex under subheading 3926 90 97 of the Combined Nomenclature, set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1549/2006 of 17 October 2006.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 31.7.2010.