title: Case C-334/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Albacete (Spain) lodged on 15 June 2016 — José Luís Núñez Torreiro v Seguros Chartis Europe, S.A.

text:
               22.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/17

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Albacete (Spain) lodged on 15 June 2016 — José Luís Núñez Torreiro v Seguros Chartis Europe, S.A.
   (Case C-334/16)
   (2016/C 305/25)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Audiencia Provincial de Albacete

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: José Luís Núñez Torreiro

      Respondent: Seguros Chartis Europe, S.A.

      Questions referred

               1.

               May the concept ‘use of vehicles’, as an insurance risk for civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, to which the Community legislation (inter alia, Article 3 of Directive 2009/103/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009) refers, be determined by the national legislation of a Member State differently from how it is determined by the Community legislation?

               2.

               If so, may that concept exclude (in addition to specific persons, plates or types of vehicles, as recognised by Article 5(1) and (2) of that Directive) circumstances which depend on the place in which the vehicle is used, such as roads, or terrain ‘unsuitable’ for motor vehicles?

               3.

               Similarly, is it possible to exclude as ‘use of a vehicle’ certain activities of the vehicle relating to its purpose (such as its sporting, industrial or agricultural use) or relating to the driver’s intention (for example, the commission of an intentional offence with the vehicle)?

      (1)  Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability.

      OJ 2009 L 263, p. 11.


title: Case C-450/10 P: Appeal brought on 15 September 2010 by Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche SpA against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Fifth Chamber) on 1 July 2010 in Case T-64/08 Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche SpA v European Commission

text:
               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/21

         Appeal brought on 15 September 2010 by Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche SpA against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Fifth Chamber) on 1 July 2010 in Case T-64/08 Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche SpA v European Commission
   (Case C-450/10 P)
   ()
   2010/C 317/38
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche SpA (represented by T. Salonico, G. Barone and A. Marea, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal (1) and annul the decision (2) in that they find that the contested measure is not in the nature of indemnification or compensation, but instead consider it to be unlawful and incompatible State aid; and/or

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as it does not hold that the order for recovery contained in the decision conflicts with the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and, in consequence, annul the decision in so far as it order Italy to take steps forthwith to recover the aid together with interest; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant maintains that the judgment under appeal is incorrect and must, therefore, be set aside on the following grounds:

               1.

               infringement of Articles 107 and 108 of the EC Treaty, contradictory reasoning and manifest error of assessment in that it distorts the clear sense of the evidence produced in relation to the interpretation of the contested measure as being State aid and not as being a measure to compensate the appellant. The General Court erred in interpreting restrictively the legislation and national case-law invoked by the appellant at first instance, which establish that the contested measure does not constitute State aid but has instead continued to pursue the aim of compensation originally envisaged by the Italian legislature in 1962 and recognised by the Commission and the General Court;

               2.

               infringement of Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, (3) and contradictory and insufficient reasoning, in so far as the General Court concluded that the order for recovery contained in the decision was not contrary to the principle of protection of legitimate expectations. The General Court’s judgment is wrong and wants adequate reasoning in so far as it denies that the Commission’s long silence on the explanations offered by the Italian authorities at the end of 1991 concerning the fact that the first extension of the Terni tariff continued to pursue the original aim of compensation was a circumstance capable of engendering a legitimate expectation on the part of the appellant with regard to the fact that the extensions of the Terni tariff, including the contested measure, do not constitute State aid.

      (1)  Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of the European Union of 1 July 2010 in Case T-64/08.

      (2)  Commission Decision 2008/408/EC of 20 November 2007 on the State aid C 36/A/06 (ex NN 38/06) implemented by Italy in favour of ThyssenKrupp, Cementir and Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche (OJ 2008 L 144, p. 37).

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 88 [now Article 93] of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).


title: Case C-284/05: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 December 2009 — European Commission v Republic of Finland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Duty-free imports of military equipment)

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 December 2009 — European Commission v Republic of Finland
   (Case C-284/05) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Duty-free imports of military equipment)
   2010/C 51/02
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Wilms and P. Aalto, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by: T. Pynnä, E. Bygglin, J. Heliskoski and A. Guimaraes-Purokoski, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: J. Molde, Agent), Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and U. Forsthoff, Agents), Hellenic Republic (represented by: E.-M. Mamouna and K. Boskovits, Agents), Italian Republic (represented by: I. M. Braguglia, Agent, G. De Bellis, avvocato dello Stato), Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, Agent), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk, Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Breach of Articles 2, 9, 10 and 11 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources (OJ 1989 L 155, p. 1) and, for the period after 31 May 2000, of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources (OJ 2000 L 130, p. 1) — Duty-free imports of military equipment and goods for dual military and civil use

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 26 EC, Article 20 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code and, consequently, the Common Customs Tariff by exempting imports of military equipment from customs duties in the period from 1998 until 2002 and has also failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 and Articles 9 to 11 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources, as amended by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1355/96 of 8 July 1996, and the same articles of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources, by refusing to calculate, declare and to make available to the European Commission the own resources relating thereto and by refusing to pay default interest payable because of the failure to make those own resources available to the European Commission;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Finland to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Hellenic Republic, the Italian Republic, the Portuguese Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 271, 29.10.2005.


title: Case F-66/09: Action brought on 9 July 2009 — Saracco v ECB

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/51

         Action brought on 9 July 2009 — Saracco v ECB
   (Case F-66/09)
   2009/C 205/94
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Roberta Saracco (Arona, Italy) (represented by: F. Parrat, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Central Bank

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the ECB’s decision refusing to extend the applicant’s leave on personal grounds.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decision to refuse to allow the applicant to take leave on personal grounds from 1 November 2008;

               —

               so far as necessary, annul the decisions refusing revision and rejecting the complaint;

               —

               order the European Central Bank to pay the costs.


title: Case C-145/13 P: Appeal brought on 22 March 2013 by Ghezzo Giovanni & C. Snc di Ghezzo Maurizio & C. against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 January 2013 in Case T-218/00 Cooperativa Mare Azzurro Socialpesca Soc. coop. arl, formerly Cooperative Mare Azzurro Soc. coop. rl, and Cooperativa vongolari Sottomarina Lido Soc. coop. rl v European Commission

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/2

         Appeal brought on 22 March 2013 by Ghezzo Giovanni & C. Snc di Ghezzo Maurizio & C. against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 January 2013 in Case T-218/00 Cooperativa Mare Azzurro Socialpesca Soc. coop. arl, formerly Cooperative Mare Azzurro Soc. coop. rl, and Cooperativa vongolari Sottomarina Lido Soc. coop. rl v European Commission
   (Case C-145/13 P)
   2013/C 207/02
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Ghezzo Giovanni & C. Snc di Ghezzo Maurizio & C. (represented by: R. Volpe and C. Montagner, avvocati)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Cooperativa Mare Azzurro Socialpesca Soc. coop. rl, formerly Cooperativa Mare Azzurro Soc. coop. rl, Cooperativa vongolari Sottomarina Lido Soc. coop. rl, European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Uphold the present appeal,

                           —

                           accordingly, set aside the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 23 January 2013, notified on 24 January 2013 in Case T-218/00, and, consequently, annul Commission Decision 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999, or,

                           —

                           in the alternative, annul Article 5 of that decision in so far as it imposes an obligation to recover the amount of relief granted from the social security contributions at issue and in so far as it provides that interest is to be added to that amount for the period in question;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs both at first instance and on appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its order of 23 January 2013 (‘the order under appeal’), the General Court declared that the action brought by Ghezzo Giovanni & C. Snc seeking the annulment of Commission Decision 2000/394/EC on relief from social security contributions was in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law.
   The first ground of this appeal alleges that no reasons were given for deeming the action before the General Court inadmissible; therefore, paragraph 58 of the order under appeal breaches the general principle that there is a duty to state the reasons on which measures are based and, more specifically, infringes Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.
   The second ground raised by the appellant alleges that there has not been a proper, exhaustive interpretation of Article 87(1) EC (now Article 107(1) TFEU).
   It is also alleged that Article 87(1) EC has been infringed in that there has been a breach of the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination, as 22 undertakings have been declared exempt from recovery of the aid granted to them on the grounds that they have provided comprehensive reasons for that grant, whereas the appellant has been deemed not to have provided comprehensive reasons for its grant.
   The contested order also breaches the principle of non-discrimination, in that it confers legitimacy upon the Commission’s decision by virtue of which recovery of aid under Article 87(1) EC was excluded for municipal undertakings (which the Commission, when implementing that decision, allowed to provide any additional information necessary in order to assess the lawfulness of the aid granted), whereas the appellant was never asked for any supplementary documentation before recovery of the aid was initiated.
   In further support of its allegations of infringement of Article 87(1) EC, another part of the appeal also states that the order under appeal does not provide any reasons for finding that the aid granted to the appellant had an effect on intra-Community trade. First the Commission and then the General Court found that the relief in question was unlawful, citing the distortion of intra-Community trade as an element inherent in granting aid to undertakings in the fishing industry, without carrying out any kind of examination of the relevant market or providing any statement of reasons for that finding.
   The order under appeal also infringes Article 87(3)(a) EC (now Article 107(3)(a) TFEU), since it has not assessed the conditions for applying the derogation in question to the appellant’s situation. In particular, the standard of living in Chioggia is extremely low, with extraordinary levels of underemployment.
   Similarly, the order under appeal infringes Article 87(3)(c) EC (now Article 107(3)(c) TFEU), in that it finds that the derogation does not apply to the appellant’s situation, although it has provided no reasons in that regard, and Article 87(3)(d) EC (now Article 107(3)(d) TFEU), in that, in breach of the principle of non-discrimination, it finds that the derogation which was found applicable to other Venetian undertakings does not apply to the appellant’s situation.
   Lastly, it is alleged that the General Court erred in its interpretation regarding the absence of ‘existing aid’, thereby infringing Articles 1, 14 and 15 of Regulation 659/1999. (1) It cannot be denied that the succession of rules in force represents a continuous reduction in social security contributions over a period of several decades.

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


title: Case T-136/10: Action brought on 16 March 2010 — M v EMEA

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/37

         Action brought on 16 March 2010 — M v EMEA
   (Case T-136/10)
   2010/C 148/63
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: M (represented by: C. Thomann, Barrister and I. Khawaja, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Medicines Agency (EMEA)

      Form of order sought

               —

               award damages pursuant to Article 340 TFUE for the losses sustained as a result of breaches, to be calculated or such other sums as the Court may rule appropriate;

               —

               interest on such sums as are found to be due at a rate equivalent to that applied pursuant to section 35A of the Supreme Court Act 1981 or such other sum as the Court may rule to be appropriate;

               —

               costs;

               —

               such further additional relief that the General Court considers appropriate.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In the present case, the applicant requests the Court to award him damages pursuant to Article 340 TFEU for the losses he sustained as a result of an accident at work. He claims that he sustained injuries by reason of the defendant’s breaches of duties owed to him as its employee.
   The applicant relies inter alia, upon Article 6(3) of Directive 89/391 EEC (1), Article 15 of Annex I of Council Directive 89/654 EEC (2) and Article 3 of Directive 89/655 EEC (3) concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for the workplace.
   The failure on the defendant’s part to comply with its health and safety obligations as regards the assessment and reduction of risk, the suitability of equipment provided and the provision of clear surface areas at the workplace breached the defendant’s obligations under United Kingdom Health and Safety Law, and its common duty of care. The applicant claims having suffered personal injury, financial losses and non-material damage as a result of the above breaches and he contends being entitled to be compensated for these.

      (1)  Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1)

      (2)  Council Directive 89/654/EEC of 30 November 1989 concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for the workplace (first individual directive within the meaning of Article 16 (1) of Directive 89/391/EEC), (OJ 1989 L 393, p. 1)

      (3)  Council Directive 89/655/EEC of 30 November 1989 concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for the use of work equipment by workers at work (second individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16 (1) of Directive 89/391/EEC), (OJ 1989 L 393, p. 13)


title: Order of the Court of 2 March 1999 in Joined Cases C-231/98 and C-232/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance d'Épinal: SA Lamboley (C-231/98), Bouctot (C-232/98) v Administration des Impôts (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Manifestly identical question)

text:
C 136/4                   EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         15.5.1999
Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate General; H. von Holstein,                                      ORDER OF THE COURT
Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 March 1999, in
which it has ruled:                                                                                of 2 March 1999
It is contrary to Articles 52 and 58 of the EC Treaty for a Member
State to refuse to register a branch of a company formed in accordance     in Joined Cases C-231/98 and C-232/98 (reference for a
with the law of another Member State in which it has its registered        preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance
office but in which it conducts no business where the branch is            d’Épinal: SA Lamboley (C-231/98), Bouctot (C-232/98) v
intended to enable the company in question to carry on its entire                           Administration des Impôts (1)
business in the State in which that branch is to be created, while
avoiding the need to form a company there, thus evading application        (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Manifestly
of the rules governing the formation of companies which, in that                                   identical question)
State, are more restrictive as regards the paying up of a minimum
share capital. That interpretation does not, however, prevent the
authorities of the Member State concerned from adopting any                                         (1999/C 136/07)
appropriate measure for preventing or penalising fraud, either in
relation to the company itself, if need be in cooperation with the
Member State in which it was formed, or in relation to its members,                            (Language of the case: French)
where it has been established that they are in fact attempting, by
means of the formation of a company, to evade their obligations            In joined Cases C-231/98 and C-232/98: reference to the
towards private or public creditors established in the territory of the    Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal de
Member State concerned.                                                    Grande Instance d’Épinal (France) for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                           the proceedings pending before that court between SA Lam-
(1) OJ C 228, 26.7.1997.                                                   boley (C-231/98), Bouctot (C-232/98) and Administration des
                                                                           Impôts on the interpretation of Article 95 of the EC Treaty —
                                                                           the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President,
                                                                           P. J. G. Kapteyn, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann,
                                                                           Presidents of Chambers, G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de
                                                                           Almeida, C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward, H.
                     ORDER OF THE COURT                                    Ragnemalm, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), Judges;
                                                                           F. G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an
                                                                           order on 2 March 1999, the operative part of which is as
                            of 2 March 1999                                follows:
in Case C-422/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal de Première Instance de Bruxelles): Colonia                   Article 95 of the EC Treaty does not preclude the application of
Versicherung AG Zweigniederlassung München and                             national rules on motor vehicle taxation which provide for an increase
                      Others v Belgian State (1)                           in the progression coefficient of the kind at issue in the main
                                                                           proceedings, in so far as that increase does not have the effect of
    (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Inadmissibility)                 favouring the sales of vehicles of domestic manufacture over the sale
                                                                           of vehicles imported from other Member States.
                            (1999/C 136/06)
                                                                           (1) OJ C 278, 5.9.1998.
                     (Language of the case: French)
In Case C-422/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty from the Tribunal de Première Instance de
Bruxelles for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Colonia Versicherung AG Zweignie-
derlassung München and Others v Belgian State on the
interpretation of Article 30 of the EC Treaty — the Court,                 Action brought on 10 February 1999 by the Commission
composed of: G. C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P. J. G. Kap-           of the European Communities against the French Republic
teyn, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann (Rapporteur),
Presidents of Chambers, G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de
Almeida, C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward, H. Ragne-                                        (Case C-38/99)
malm, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 2 March                                          (1999/C 136/08)
1999, the operative part of which is as follows:
The reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Tribunal de             An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Première Instance de Bruxelles, by judgment of 10 November 1998,           Court of Justice of the European Communities on 10 February
is inadmissible.                                                           1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                           represented by Paolo Stancanelli, of its Legal Service, and
                                                                           Olivier Couvert-Castéra, a national civil servant on secondment
(1) OJ C 20, 23.1.1999.                                                    to the Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for
                                                                           service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
                                                                           Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.


title: Case C-375/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht by order of that court of  23 August 2005  in Erhard Geuting v Direktor der Landwirtschaftskammer Nordrhein-Westfalen

text:
               24.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht by order of that court of 23 August 2005 in Erhard Geuting v Direktor der Landwirtschaftskammer Nordrhein-Westfalen
   (Case C-375/05)
   (2005/C 330/17)
   Language of the case: German
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Bundesverwaltungsgericht of 23 August 2005, received at the Court Registry on 12 October 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Erhard Geuting and the Direktor der Landwirtschaftskammer Nordrhein-Westfalen on the following questions:

               1.

               For the purposes of Article 4a(ii) of Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 of the Council of 27 June 1968 (1) as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2066/92 of 30 June 1992 (2):

                           (a)

                           Is an in-calf heifer only a suckler cow within the meaning of the first section of the regulation if it replaces a suckler cow for which an application for a premium has been made?

                           (b)

                           Is an in-calf heifer also a suckler cow within the meaning of the first section of the regulation if, in the previous marketing year, it replaced a suckler cow for which an application for a premium had been made and was regarded as eligible for a premium?

                           (c)

                           Is an in-calf heifer for which application for a premium has been made to be regarded at any rate as eligible for a premium if it calves before the end of the period for lodging applications?

               2.

               The following questions are also referred to the Court of Justice of the European Communities for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article 33(2) and (4) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3886/92 of 23 December 1992 (3) as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2311/96 of 2 December 1996 (4):

               (a)

               Has a producer not made use of premium rights during a marketing year if he has applied for a premium but his application has been rejected because the animals concerned were not eligible for premiums?
               Is this also the case if there is no indication of an improper application having been made?
               Would this be compatible with the Community principle of proportionality?

               (b)

               Should Article 33(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 3886/92 be interpreted as meaning that, in an instance such as this, premium rights are maintained because it constitutes a (duly justified) exceptional case?

               (c)

               Should premium rights that are withdrawn from a producer under Article 33(4) of Regulation (EEC) No 3886/92 because he made use of more than 70 % but less than 90 % of his premium rights in the 1998 marketing year be granted to that producer on a preferential basis on the expiry of the two-year exclusion period?

      (1)  OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (I), p. 187.

      (2)  OJ L 215, p. 49.

      (3)  OJ L 391, p. 20.

      (4)  OJ L 313, p. 9.


title: Case C-121/07: Action brought on 28 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/31

         Action brought on 28 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
   (Case C-121/07)
   (2007/C 95/59)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Stromsky and C. Zadra, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: French Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to take all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 15 July 2004 in Case C-419/03 (1) concerning the failure to transpose into national law the provisions of Directive 2001/18/EC Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (2) which diverge from or exceed the provisions of Council Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms (3), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 228(1) of the Treaty Establishing the European Community;

               —

               order the French Republic to pay to pay into the Commission's ‘European Community own resources ’account a periodic penalty payment of EUR 366 744 for each day of delay in complying with judgment in Case C-419/03 from the date of judgment herein until the judgment in Case C-419/03 has been complied with in full;

               —

               order the French Republic to pay to pay into the Commission's ‘European Community own resources ’account a lump sum of EUR 46 660 for day of delay in complying with the judgment in Case C-419/03 from the date of the judgment in Case C-419/03 until either:

                           —

                           the judgment in Case C-419/03 has been fully complied with (if that is the case before the judgment is delivered in this case), or

                           —

                           the judgment has been delivered in this case (if the judgment delivered in Case C-419/03 has not been fully complied with at that time);

               —

               order French Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   More than four years after the expiry of the period prescribed for the transposition of Directive 2001/18 and more than 28 months after the judgment of the Court of 15 July 2004 in Case C-419/03 declaring that the French Republic had failed to fulfil its obligation to transpose that directive, the French Republic has still failed to take the measures necessary to comply with that judgment. Therefore, the Commission proposes that the French Republic should be ordered to pay a fine and a periodic penalty payment to reflect the seriousness of that infringement and its impact on the pursuit of the objectives pursued by the Community legislature.

      (1)  Judgment not published in the ECR.

      (2)  OJ 1990 L 106, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ 1990 L 117, p. 15.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 November 2001 in Case C-270/99 P: Z v European Parliament (Appeal — Officials — Disciplinary proceedings — Failure to comply with the time-limits laid down in Article 7 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities)

text:
C 84/6                    EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           6.4.2002
a)    A benefit such as the advance on maintenance payments                 for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before
      provided for by the Österreichische Bundesgesetz über die            that court between Carl Kühne GmbH & Co. KG, Rich.
      Gewährung von Vorschüssen auf den Unterhalt von Kindern               Hengstenberg GmbH & Co., Ernst Nowka GmbH & Co. KG
      (Unterhaltsvorschussgesetz) (Austrian Federal Law on the Grant        and Jütro Konservenfabrik GmbH & Co. KG — on the validity
      of Advances for the Maintenance of Children), adopted in              of Commission Regulation (EC) No 590/1999 of 18 March
      1985, is a family benefit within the meaning of Article 4(1)(h)       1999 supplementing the Annex to Regulation (EC)
      of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971                No 1107/96 on the registration of geographical indications
      on the application of social security schemes to employed             and designations of origin under the procedure laid down in
      persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their             Article 17 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (OJ 1999 L 74,
      families moving within the Community, as amended and                  p. 8) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: N. Colneric,
      updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December            President of the Second Chamber, acting for the President of
      1996.                                                                 the Sixth Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet,
                                                                            R. Schintgen and V. Skouris, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate
b)    A person, one or other of whose parents is an employed person         General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
      or is out of work, comes within the scope ratione personae of         a judgment on 6 December 2001, in which it has ruled:
      Regulation No 1408/71, as amended, as a member of the
      family of a worker within the meaning of Article 2(1) of
                                                                            Consideration of the question referred has not revealed any matter of
      Regulation No 1408/71, read in the light of Article 1(f)(i)
                                                                            such a nature as to affect the validity of Commission Regulation (EC)
      thereof.
                                                                            No 590/1999 of 18 March 1999 supplementing the Annex to
c)    Articles 73 and 74 of Regulation No 1408/71 are to be                 Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 on the registration of geographical
      construed as meaning that, where a minor child resides with the       indications and designations of origin under the procedure laid down
      parent who has custody in a Member State other than the               in Article 17 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92, in so far as it
      Member State providing the benefit, and where the other parent,       registers the designation ‘Spreewälder Gurken’.
      who is under an obligation to pay maintenance, works or is
      unemployed in the Member State providing the benefit, that            (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.
      child is entitled to receive a family benefit such as the advance
      on maintenance payments provided for by the Unterhaltsvor-
      schussgesetz.
(1) OJ C 265 of 18.9.1999.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 27 November 2001
                           (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                in Case C-270/99 P: Z v European Parliament (1)
                         of 6 December 2001
                                                                            (Appeal — Officials — Disciplinary proceedings — Failure
in Case C-269/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                   to comply with the time-limits laid down in Article 7 of
the Landgericht Hamburg): Carl Kühne GmbH & Co. KG,                         Annex IX to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the
Rich. Hengstenberg GmbH & Co., Ernst Nowka GmbH &                                                 European Communities)
   Co. KG v Jütro Konservenfabrik GmbH & Co. KG (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 84/11)
(Agricultural products and foodstuffs — Geographical indi-
cations and designations of origin — Simplified registration
procedure — Protection of the designation ‘Spreewälder                                           (Language of the case: French)
                                Gurken’)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                            (2002/C 84/10)                                                      in the European Court Reports)
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                            In Case C-270/99 P: Z, an official of the European Parliament,
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by J.-N. Louis,
                     in the European Court Reports)                         avocat, appeal against the judgment of the Court of First
                                                                            Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) of
                                                                            4 May 1999 in Case T-242/97 Z v Parliament [1999] ECR
In Case C-269/99: reference to the Court under Article 234                  I-A-77 and II-401, seeking to have that judgment set aside in
EC from the Landgericht (Regional Court) Hamburg (Germany)                  so far as the Court of First Instance dismissed Z’s action against
 ---pagebreak--- 6.4.2002                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                               C 84/7
the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parlia-              concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of
ment of 28 October 1996 imposing on him the disciplinary                   public works contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54) — the Court
measure of downgrading, the other party to the proceedings                 (Sixth Chamber), composed of: N. Colneric, President of the
being: European Parliament (Agent: H. Krück) — the Court,                  Second Chamber, acting as President of the Sixth Chamber,
composed of: F. Macken, President of the Chamber, N. Colner-               C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and
ic, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet and V. Skouris (Rapporteur),              V. Skouris, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General;
Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal                L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                  judgment on 27 November 2001, in which it has ruled:
27 November 2001, in which it:
1.    Dismisses the appeal;
                                                                           Article 30(4) of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993
2.    Orders Z to pay the costs.                                           concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public
                                                                           works contracts must be interpreted as follows:
(1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.
                                                                           —     it precludes a Member State’s legislation and administrative
                                                                                practice which allow the contracting authority to reject tenders
                                                                                offering a greater discount than the anomaly threshold as
                                                                                abnormally low, taking into account only those explanations of
                                                                                the prices proposed, covering at least 75 % of the basic contract
                                                                                value mentioned in the contract notice, which tenderers were
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                           required to attach to their tender, without giving the tenderers
                                                                                the opportunity to argue their point of view, after the opening
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                         of the envelopes, on those elements of the prices proposed which
                                                                                gave rise to suspicions;
                      of 27 November 2001
                                                                           —     it also precludes a Member State’s legislation and administrative
in Joined Cases C-285/99 and C-286/99 (reference for a
                                                                                practice which require the contracting authority to take into
preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato): Impresa
                                                                                consideration, for the purposes of examining abnormally low
Lombardini SpA — Impresa Generale di Costruzioni v
                                                                                tenders, only explanations based on the economy of the
ANAS — Ente nazionale per le strade, Società Italiana per
                                                                                construction method, technical solutions chosen, or exceptionally
Condotte d’Acqua SpA (C-285/99), and between Impresa
                                                                                favourable conditions available to the tenderer, but not expla-
Ing. Mantovani SpA and ANAS — Ente nazionale per
                                                                                nations relating to all those elements for which minimum values
le strade, Ditta Paolo Bregoli (C-286/99), intervener:
                                                                                are laid down by law, regulation or administrative provision or
            Coopsette Soc. coop. arl (C-286/99) (1)
                                                                                can be ascertained from official data;
(Directive 93/37/EEC — Public works contracts — Award
of contracts — Abnormally low tenders — Detailed rules for
                                                                           —     however, provided all the requirements it imposes are otherwise
explanation and rejection applied in a Member State —
                                                                                complied with and the aims pursued by Directive 93/37 are
Obligations of the awarding authority under Community
                                                                                not defeated, it does not in principle preclude a Member State’s
                                 law)
                                                                                legislation and administrative practice which, in the matter of
                                                                                identifying and examining abnormally low tenders, first, require
                          (2002/C 84/12)                                         all tenderers, under threat of exclusion from participation in the
                                                                                contract, to accompany their tender with explanations of the
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                              prices proposed, covering at least 75 % of the basic value of
                                                                                that contract, and, second, apply a method of calculating the
                                                                                anomaly threshold based on the average of all the tenders
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published           received for the tender procedure in question, so that tenderers
                   in the European Court Reports)                                are not in a position to know that threshold at the time they
                                                                                lodge their file; the result produced by applying that calculation
                                                                                method must, however, be capable of being reconsidered by the
In Joined Cases C-285/99 and C-286/99: reference to the                          contracting authority.
Court under Article 234 EC) from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy)
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Impresa Lombardini SpA — Impresa Generale
di Costruzioni v ANAS — Ente nazionale per le strade, Società              (1) OJ C 314 of 30.10.1999.
Italiana per Condotte d’Acqua SpA (C-285/99), and between
Impresa Ing. Mantovani SpA and ANAS — Ente nazionale per
le strade, Ditta Paolo Bregoli (C-286/99), intervener: Coopsette
Soc. coop. arl (C-286/99) — on the interpretation of Article
30(4) of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993


title: Case T-389/10: Action brought on 13 September 2010 — SLM v Commission

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/46

         Action brought on 13 September 2010 — SLM v Commission
   (Case T-389/10)
   ()
   2010/C 301/74
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Siderurgica Latina Martin SpA (SLM) (Ceprano, Italy) (represented by: G. Belotti, lawyer, and F. Covone, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Decision C(2010) 4387 final, adopted on 30 June 2010 in Case COMP.38.344 — Pre-stressing steel;

               —

               in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The decision contested in the present proceedings is the same as that contested in Case T-385/10 Arcelormittal Wire France and Others v Commission.
   The applicant company submits:

               In support of its claim that the decision should be annulled: the unusual and unjustifiable length of the administrative procedure, which seriously compromised the applicant’s exercise of the rights of defence, especially in relation to the facts of the two-year period from 1997 to 1999, that is to say, facts pre-dating by 10 years the statement of objections of September 2008.

               In support of its claim that the fine should be reduced:

                           Failure to state adequate reasons for the quantification of the penalty, in so far as it remains unclear on the basis of which calculation and which turnover the Commission penalised the applicant.

                           Breach of the upper limit of 10 % of turnover.

                           Failure to state adequate reasons for the increases applied.

                           Misapplication of the 2006 Guidelines on the setting of fines, and also the 1998 Guidelines, in force not only at the material time, but also during the first four years of the procedure.

                           Erroneous assessment of the duration of the applicant’s participation in the cartel, not based on objective findings.

                           Failure on a number of occasions to take account of mitigating circumstances: the demonstrably secondary role played by the applicant in the events at issue; the applicant’s limited market share; and the ineffectiveness of the cartel.

                           The Commission is now time-barred, since no measure was adopted to stop time from running during the five-year period following the surprise inspection.


title: Case C-326/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — J.J. Komen en Zonen Beheer Heerhugowaard BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 13B(g), read in conjunction with Article 4(3)(a) — Supply of buildings and the land upon which they stand — Supply of a building undergoing work with the view to the creation of a new building by transformation — Continuation and completion of the work by the purchaser after the supply — Exemption from VAT)

text:
               22.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/16

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — J.J. Komen en Zonen Beheer Heerhugowaard BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-326/11) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Article 13B(g), read in conjunction with Article 4(3)(a) - Supply of buildings and the land upon which they stand - Supply of a building undergoing work with the view to the creation of a new building by transformation - Continuation and completion of the work by the purchaser after the supply - Exemption from VAT)
   2012/C 287/27
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: J.J. Komen en Zonen Beheer Heerhugowaard BV

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Articles 4(3)(a) and 13B(g) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Exemptions provided for in the Sixth Directive — Exemption for supplies of buildings and the land on which they stand — Supply of a building on which work is being carried out with a view to the creation of a new building — Continuation and completion of the work by the purchaser after the supply

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 13B(g) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, read in conjunction with Article 4(3)(a) of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from value added tax provided for in that first provision covers a supply of immovable property consisting of a plot of land and an old building undergoing transformation into a new building, such as that in issue in the main proceedings, where, at the time of that supply, the old building had only undergone partial demolition work and was, at least in part, still used as such.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.


title: Case T-190/10: Action brought on 22 April 2010 — Egan and Hackett v Parliament

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/55

      Action brought on 22 April 2010 — Egan and Hackett v Parliament
      (Case T-190/10)
      (2010/C 161/87)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: Kathleen Egan (Athboy, Ireland) and Margaret Hackett (Borris-in-Ossory, Ireland) (represented by: C. MacEochaidh SC and J. Goode, Barristers and K. Neary, Solicitor)

         Defendant: European Parliament

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  Declare the application admissible;

                  —

                  Annul, under Article 263 TFUE, the Decision of the European Parliament dated 12 February 2010 (A(2010)579) denying access to information requested by the applicants by means of their initial application of 16 December 2009 and the subsequent confirmatory application of 28 January 2010; and

                  —

                  Order the Parliament to pay the costs incurred by the applicants.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      By means of the present application, the applicants seek, pursuant to Article 263 TFUE, the annulment the decision of the European Parliament dated 12 February 2010 (A(2010)579) refusing access to documents, consisting of public registers of assistants to members of the European Parliament, whether accredited or otherwise, containing such assistants names and/or such assistants financial interests.
      The applicants claim, in support of their application, that the Parliament inappropriately relied on Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) and on Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 (2) as a basis for refusing access to documentation already in the public domain. Accordingly, the applicants put forward several pleas in law:

                  Firstly, the Parliament failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons for the contested decision, thereby breaching Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

                  Secondly, the contested decision contains errors of assessment relating to the exception provided for in Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 in that it states that the disclosure of the relevant documents would infringe the privacy interests of the individuals concerned and/or fails to appreciate the true nature of Article 4(1)(b), and/or holds that the public interest in access to public registers of the assistants of the European Parliament members declines once the person is no longer in such position.

                  In addition, the contested decision infringes essential procedural requirements by failing to inform the applicants of the remedies open to them upon refusal of a confirmatory application, as provided for in Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

                  Finally, the contested decision breaches the principles of democracy, transparency, proportionality, equality and non-discrimination by refusing access to public documentation when such documentation was previously available to applicants under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

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

         (2)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data, OJ L 8, p. 1.


title: Case T-137/16: Action brought on 25 March 2016 — Uniwersytet Wrocławski v Commission and REA

text:
               6.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/27

         Action brought on 25 March 2016 — Uniwersytet Wrocławski v Commission and REA
   (Case T-137/16)
   (2016/C 200/39)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Uniwersytet Wrocławski (Wrocław, Poland) (represented by: W. Dubis, lawyer)

      Defendants: European Commission and Research Executive Agency (REA)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Research Executive Agency (REA) to terminate Grant Agreement No 252908 for the COSSAR (Cooperative Spectrum Sensing Algorithms for Cognitive Radio Networks) Project (PIEF-GA-2009-252908), which was concluded on 26 July 2010 under the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Union — European Support for Training and Career Development of Researchers (Marie Curie) and to require the applicant to repay a portion of the financial assistance in the amounts of EUR 36 508,37 and EUR 58 031,38, to repay the security for the guarantee fund in the amount of 6 286,68 and to pay a contractual penalty in the amount of EUR 5 803,14;

               —

               require the REA to reimburse to the applicant the portion of the financial assistance in the amounts of EUR 36 508,37 and EUR 58 031,38, the security for the guarantee fund in the amount of 6 286,68 and the contractual penalty in the amount of EUR 5 803,14, increased by interest from the date of payment up to the date of reimbursement;

               —

               order the REA to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant puts forward one plea in law concerning the REA’s interpretation of [Section III.3.1(j)] of Annex III to the Grant Agreement.

               —

               The applicant submits that, while the Grant Agreement does not contain any legal definition of the wording contained in the agreement in question, the normal understanding of that wording is at variance with that put forward by the REA. It invokes the rules on literal, functional and teleological interpretation under Belgian law, which, according to the terms of the Grant Agreement, are applicable in full to the latter.


title: Case T-339/06: Action brought on 30 November 2006 — Greece v Commission

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/80

         Action brought on 30 November 2006 — Greece v Commission
   (Case T-339/06)
   (2006/C 326/162)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I. Khalkias and S. Papaïoannou)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul or alter the contested Commission decision in so far as it concerns the financial allocation for the restructuring and conversion of vineyards in Greece, in order that the correct statistical information which the applicant transmitted to the Commission on 22 September 2006 be taken into account and the sums be allocated to Greece.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Hellenic Republic challenges Commission Decision C(2006) 4348 final of 4 October 2006 (OJ 2006 L 275, p. 62) fixing, for the 2006 financial year and in respect of a certain number of hectares, the definitive financial allocations to Member States for the restructuring and conversion of vineyards under Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999. The Hellenic Republic seeks the annulment or alteration of the decision in so far as the decision relates to Greece because, in its submission, the Commission:

               (a)

               infringed the obligation of cooperation which governs relations between it and the Member States by failing to take account of the information which was transmitted to it by the applicant;

               (b)

               infringed the principle of good faith and of proper administration, not acknowledging a clear computer error of which it was notified in good and due time by means of the subsequent correction;

               (c)

               infringed the principle of equity and of proportionality, given that the loss of funds for Greece (EUR 1 129 015) is out of proportion with the allegedly belated correction of the computing error in the information originally forwarded; and finally

               (d)

               infringed the principle that a beneficial result should be achieved, given that the restructuring and conversion of vineyards (Articles 11, 13 and 14 of Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 (1) and Articles 16 and 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1227/2000 (2)) constitute an important measure for the qualitative upgrading of Community vineyards and the unjustified reduction of Greece's financial allocation prejudices that Community objective.

      (1)  OJ 1999 L 179, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2000 L 143, p. 1.


title: Removal from the register of Case T-213/95 R

text:
2 . 3 . 96           1 EN 1                Official Journal of the European Communities                             No C 64/25
which the Court of First Instance held that amending                        Removal from the register of Case T-84/95 ( )
Regulations which, after 3 October 1990, fixed a weighting                                       ( 96/C 64/49 )
for Germany by reference to the cost of living in Bonn were
unlawful; the Commission applied Regulation ( ECSC, EC,                             (Language of the case: French)
Euratom ) No 3161 /94, thereby remedying the illegality
which had been established only as from 1 July 1994 .                 By order of 12 January 1996 the President of the First
The applicants also allege an infringement of the principle of        Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                      Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
equal treatment, since, as from 1 October 1990, they did not
enjoy a purchasing power equivalent to that of other                  T-84/95 : Rene Bebin v. Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities .
officials who did not transfer part of their remuneration to
Germany.                                                              0 ) OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
Finally, the Commission failed to ensure that the weighting
for Germany was fixed, in accordance with the Staff
Regulations, at the level of the capital, Berlin, thereby
infringing its duty to have due regard for the interests of
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case T-138/95 ( ] )
officials. Nor did it bring any action for the annulment of the
Regulation in question, even though it was clearly unlawful;                                     ( 96/C 64/50 )
it thereby failed in its task of ensuring the observance of
Community law, a task which also falls within the duty to                          (Language of the case: German)
have due regard for the interests of officials, when the
persons towards whom the unlawful provision and                       By order of 16 January 1996 the President of the First
secondary legislation is directed are officials and other             Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
servants .
                                                                      Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                      T-138/95 : Friedrich Engelking v. Council of the European
                                                                      Union and Commission of the European Communities .
                                                                      (!) OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
        Removal from the register of Case T-276/94 (')
                            ( 96/C 64/48 )
               (Language of the case: French)                               Removal from the register of Case T-2 13/95 R
                                                                                ( 96/C 64/51 )
By order of 23 January 1996 the President of the Third
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case                            (Language of the case: Dutch)
T-276/94 : Adam Buick v. Commission of the European
Communities .
                                                                      By order of 24 January 1996 the President of the First
                                                                      Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
( J ) OJ No C 304 , 29 . 10 . 1994 .                                  Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                      T-213/95 R: Stichting Certificatie Kraanverhuurbedrijf v.
                                                                      Commission of the European Communities.


title: Case C-190/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 16 April 2010 — Génesis Seguros Generales Sociedad Anónima de Seguros y Reaseguros (GENESIS) v Boys Toys S.A., Administración del Estado

text:
               17.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/3

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 16 April 2010 — Génesis Seguros Generales Sociedad Anónima de Seguros y Reaseguros (GENESIS) v Boys Toys S.A., Administración del Estado
   (Case C-190/10)
   2010/C 195/04
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Génesis Seguros Generales Sociedad Anónima de Seguros y Reaseguros (GENESIS)

      Defendant: Boys Toys S.A. y Administración del Estado

      Question referred

   May Article 27 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark be interpreted in such a way as to enable account to be taken not only of the day but also of the hour and minute of filing of an application for registration of a Community trade mark with OHIM (provided that such information has been recorded) for the purposes of establishing temporal priority over a national trade mark application filed on the same day, where the national legislation governing the registration of national trade marks considers the time of filing to be relevant?

      (1)  OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 1 October 1998 in Case C-279/95 P: Langnese-Iglo GmbH v. Commission of the European Communities, supported by Mars GmbH (Competition - Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty - Exclusive purchasing agreements for ice-cream - Comfort letter - Prohibition of concluding exclusive agreements in the future)

text:
5.12.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 378/1
                                                                  I
                                                            (Information)
                                              COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                        COURT OF JUSTICE
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  D. Ruiz-Jarobo Colomer, Advocate-General; R. Grass,
                       (Fifth Chamber)                                Registrar, has given a judgment on 1 October 1998, in
                                                                      which it:
                      of 1 October 1998
 in Case C-279/95 P: Langnese-Iglo GmbH v. Commission                 1. Dismisses the appeal by Langnese-Iglo GmbH;
     of the European Communities, supported by Mars
                           GmbH (1)                                   2. Dismisses the cross-appeal by the Commission of the
(Competition Ð Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty Ð                            European Communities;
Exclusive purchasing agreements for ice-cream Ð Comfort
letter Ð Prohibition of concluding exclusive agreements in            3. Orders Langnese-Iglo GmbH, the Commission of the
                          the future)                                      European Communities and Mars GmbH to bear their
                        (98/C 378/01)                                      own costs.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 286, 28.10.1995.
               (Language of the case: German)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
In Case C-279/95 P: Langnese-Iglo GmbH, a company
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
incorporated under German law, established in Hamburg
(Germany), represented by Martin Heidenhain, Bernhard                                       of 6 October 1998
M. Maassen and Horst Satzky, Rechtsanwälte, Frankfurt
                                                                             in Case C-79/98: Commission of the European
am Main, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                                Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium (1)
the chambers of Jean Hoss, 2 Place Winston Churchill Ð
appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance            (Failure to fulfil obligations Ð Failure to transpose
of the European Communities (Second Chamber, Extended                                      Directive 94/69/EC)
Composition) of 8 June 1995 in Case T-7/93 Langnese
                                                                                (98/C 378/02)
Iglo v. Commission [1995] ECR II-1533, seeking to have
that judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings
being: Commission of the European Communities (Agent:                                 (Language of the case: French)
Wouter Wils, assisted by Alexander Böhlke), supported by
Mars GmbH, a company incorporated under German law,
                                                                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
established in Viersen (Germany), represented by Jochim
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
Sedemund, Rechtsanwalt, Berlin, and by John E. Pheasant,
Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Michel Molitor, 55 Boulevard de la PeÂtrusse              In Case C-79/98: Commission of the European
Ð the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann,                 Communities (Agent: Götz zur Hausen) v. Kingdom of
President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet, J. C. Moitinho de              Belgium (Agent: Anni Snoecx) Ð application for a
Almeida, P. Jann and L. Sevón (Rapporteur), Judges;                   declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 July 2005 in Case C-149/03: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — System of fishing quotas — 1991 to 1996 fishing years)

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/6

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 21 July 2005
   in Case C-149/03: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (1)

   (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations - System of fishing quotas - 1991 to 1996 fishing years)
   (2005/C 217/11)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case C-149/03 Commission of the European Communities (Agent: T. van Rijn) v Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: A. Snoecx, assisted by H. Gilliams) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 1 April 2003 — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), S. von Bahr, J. Malenovský and U. Lõhmus, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 21 July 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, having failed

                           —

                           to establish the appropriate detailed rules for utilisation of the quotas allocated to it for each of the fishing years in the period 1991 to 1996;

                           —

                           in respect of each of those fishing years to ensure compliance with Community legislation on the conservation of fisheries resources through the supervision of fishing activities and appropriate monitoring of the unloading and registration of catches;

                           —

                           in respect of each of those fishing years within a reasonable period of time provisionally to prohibit fishing with vessels which fly its flag or are registered within its territory when the applicable quota was deemed to have been exhausted;

                           —

                           to adopt administrative or criminal measures against those responsible for fishing activities after bans had come into force,

                     the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 170/83 of 25 January 1983 establishing a Community system for the conservation and management of fishery resources, Article 9(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 of 20 December 1992 establishing a Community system for fisheries and aquaculture, Article 1 and Article 11(1) and (2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2241/87 of 23 July 1987 establishing certain control measures for fishing activities and Article 2, Article 21(1) and (2) and Article 31 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy.

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 135 of 07.06.2003.


title: Case C-345/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — Karen Millen Fashions Ltd v Dunnes Stores, Dunnes Stores (Limerick) Ltd (Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Community design — Article 6 — Individual character — Different overall impression — Article 85(2) — Unregistered Community design — Validity — Conditions — Burden of proof)

text:
               25.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/15

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — Karen Millen Fashions Ltd v Dunnes Stores, Dunnes Stores (Limerick) Ltd
   (Case C-345/13) (1)

   ((Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Community design - Article 6 - Individual character - Different overall impression - Article 85(2) - Unregistered Community design - Validity - Conditions - Burden of proof))
   2014/C 282/20
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Supreme Court

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Karen Millen Fashions Ltd

      Defendants: Dunnes Stores, Dunnes Stores (Limerick) Ltd

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs is to be interpreted as meaning that, in order for a design to be considered to have individual character, the overall impression which that design produces on the informed user must be different from that produced on such a user not by a combination of features taken in isolation and drawn from a number of earlier designs, but by one or more earlier designs, taken individually.

               2.

               Article 85(2) of Regulation No 6/2002 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order for a Community design court to treat an unregistered Community design as valid, the right holder of that design is not required to prove that it has individual character within the meaning of Article 6 of that regulation, but need only indicate what constitutes the individual character of that design, that is to say, indicates what, in his view, are the element or elements of the design concerned which give it its individual character.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.


title: Elections of Presidents of Chambers

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/2

      Elections of Presidents of Chambers
      (2010/C 288/03)
      On 15 September 2010, the General Court, in accordance with Article 15 of the Rules of Procedure, elected Mr Azizi, Mr Forwood, Mr Czúcz, Ms Pelikánová, Mr Papasavvas, Mr Moavero Milanesi, Mr Dittrich and Mr Truchot as Presidents of the Chambers composed of five Judges and the Chambers composed of three Judges for the period from 15 September 2010 to 31 August 2013.


title: Case C-419/04: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 June 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Poitiers, France) — Conseil général de la Vienne v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects (Post-clearance recovery of import duties — Remission of import duties — Conditions — Article 871 of the regulation implementing the Community Customs Code — Scope of the obligation to submit the case to the Commission — Failure on the part of a person liable for payment acting in good faith to declare additional royalties which should have been incorporated in the customs value of imported goods)

text:
               12.8.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/3

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 June 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Poitiers, France) — Conseil général de la Vienne v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects
   (Case C-419/04) (1)

   (Post-clearance recovery of import duties - Remission of import duties - Conditions - Article 871 of the regulation implementing the Community Customs Code - Scope of the obligation to submit the case to the Commission - Failure on the part of a person liable for payment acting in good faith to declare additional royalties which should have been incorporated in the customs value of imported goods)
   (2006/C 190/05)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Cour d'appel de Poitiers
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Conseil général de la Vienne

      Respondent: Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour d'Appel de Poitiers (Court of Appeal, Poitiers, France) — Interpretation of Article 871 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1) — Recovery of the amount of the customs debt — Obligatory nature of reference to the Commission in the event of doubt as to the scope of the criteria relating to the recovery or the remission of duties resulting from a customs debt
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 871 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1677/98 of 29 July 1998, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of a recovery procedure or a procedure for remission of uncollected customs duties, the national customs authorities are not required to submit the case to the Commission for a decision where the doubts which they had had as regards the precise scope of the criteria laid down in Article 220(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code with regard to a particular case have disappeared, even after those authorities have expressed their intention to refer the matter to the Commission, or where the doubts relate to the subsequent entry in the accounts of customs duties which were not collected due to an omission on the part of an importer acting in good faith to declare royalties which should have been incorporated in the customs value of the imported goods.

      (1)  OJ C 284, 20.11.2004.


title: Case C-330/07: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Wien — Austria) — Jobra Vermögensverwaltungs-Gesellschaft mbH v Finanzamt Amstetten Melk Scheibbs (Freedom to provide services — Freedom of establishment — Tax legislation — Investment premium — National legislation conferring a tax advantage only on assets used in a domestic place of business — Exclusion of assets hired out for remuneration primarily used in other Member States — Leasing of vehicles — Prevention of abuse)

text:
               24.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/6

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Wien — Austria) — Jobra Vermögensverwaltungs-Gesellschaft mbH v Finanzamt Amstetten Melk Scheibbs
   (Case C-330/07) (1)

   (Freedom to provide services - Freedom of establishment - Tax legislation - Investment premium - National legislation conferring a tax advantage only on assets used in a domestic place of business - Exclusion of assets hired out for remuneration primarily used in other Member States - Leasing of vehicles - Prevention of abuse)
   (2009/C 19/09)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Wien
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Jobra Vermögensverwaltungs-Gesellschaft mbH

      Defendant: Finanzamt Amstetten Melk Scheibbs
   Re:
   Preliminary ruling — Unabhängiger Finanzsenat — Interpretation of Articles 43 EC and 49 EC — National legislation reserving a tax advantage in respect of the acquisition of unused tangible assets (Investitionszuwachsprämie) to traders using those assets in a domestic place of business
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 49 EC precludes Member State legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, pursuant to which undertakings which acquire tangible assets are refused the benefit of an investment premium solely because the assets in respect of which that premium is claimed, which are hired out for remuneration, are used primarily in other Member States.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.


title: Case T-186/08: Action brought on 9 May 2008 — Liga para a protecção da natureza v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               19.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/25

         Action brought on 9 May 2008 — Liga para a protecção da natureza v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-186/08)
   (2008/C 183/49)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Liga para a protecção da natureza (LPN) (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: P. Vinagre e Silva, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of the decision of the European Commission of 28 February 2008 (referred to in letter of 3 April 2008 sent by the Commission to the Liga para a Protecção da natureza (LPN)) whereby the Commission closed the file on the complaint No 2003/4523 relating to the construction of the Baixo Sabor dam, in so far as that decision wrongly presupposes compliance with the procedural formalities essential for the exercise of LPN's rights to participate in the administrative procedure relating to the ‘Baixa Sabor Dam’ project, initiated with complaint No 2003/4523 addressed to the European Commission;

               —

               Annulment also of the decision whereby the Secretariat-General of the Commission tacitly rejected the confirmatory application submitted by LPN on 19 February 2008 under Article 8 of Regulation No 1049/2001 (1)

               —

               Order payment to LPN of token compensation for the infringement of LPN's legitimate expectations that the Commission would act fairly and would comply with procedural rules;

               —

               Request of the Commission, under Article 64 et seq. of the Rules of Procedure, that it submit to the Court the said decision to close the file of 28 February 2008, which has been neither notified to the applicant nor published;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Decision to close the file
   The decision to close the file is invalid since it is based on a clear infringement of the right to present preliminary comments which the Commission itself granted to LPN.
   The Commission has refused access to any material in the file which would have enabled LPN to exercise its right to submit preliminary comments, and has not specified the ‘internal rules’ (which it claims exist) on the basis of which that right was granted by it.
   There has also been an infringement of the fundamental principles of good faith, fairness, transparency and proper administration, since the comments cannot even have been analysed before adoption of the final decision to close the file (clearly demonstrated by the fact that less than 24 hours elapsed between the sending of the preliminary comments — 40 pages in Portuguese, with fresh facts and arguments — and the decision to close the file).
   Decision of implied rejection
   Having regard to Regulations No 1367/2006 (2) and No 1049/2001, which confirm unequivocally the right of access to ‘internal rules’ based on which the right to submit preliminary comments is granted, the silence — first of the Commission, then of the Secretariat General on the confirmatory application — is inexplicable and flatly contravenes the right of access to documents and information laid down by those regulations.

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

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