title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 March 2003 in Case T-340/00: Comunità Montana della Valnerina v Commission of the European Communities (EAGGF — Withdrawal of financial assistance — Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 — Principles of proportionality and legal certainty — Statement of reasons — Right to be heard)

text:
C 146/38                 EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        21.6.2003
                                                           COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  2.     Dismisses the remainder of the application.
                          of 13 March 2003                                   3.     Each of the parties shall bear its own costs.
in Case T-340/00: Comunità Montana della Valnerina v                         (1 ) OJ C 4 of 6.1.2001.
        Commission of the European Communities ( 1)
(EAGGF — Withdrawal of financial assistance — Article 24
of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 — Principles of pro-
portionality and legal certainty — Statement of reasons —
                          Right to be heard)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                           (2003/C 146/68)
                                                                                of 13 March 2003
                     (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                             in Case T-125/01: José Martí Peix, SA v Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
In Case T-340/00: Comunità Montana della Valnerina, rep-
resented by E. Cappelli and P. De Caterini, lawyers, with an
address for service in Luxembourg, supported by Italian                      (Fisheries — Community financial aid — Reduction of
Republic (Agents: U. Leanza and G. Aiello), against Com-                     aid — Limitation — Reasonable period — Principle of
mission of the European Communities (Agents: C. Cattabriga                                               proportionality)
and M. Moretto) — application for the annulment of Com-
mission Decision C(2000) 2388 of 14 August 2000 with-                                                   (2003/C 146/69)
drawing the financial assistance granted to the Comunità
Montana della Valnerina by Commission Decision C(93) 3182
of 10 November 1993 concerning grant of a contribution                                           (Language of the case: Spanish)
from the EAGGF, Guidance Section, pursuant to Council
Regulation (EEC) No 4256/88 of 19 December 1988 laying
down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/
88 as regards the EAGGF, Guidance Section (OJ 1988 L 374,                    In Case T-125/01: José Martí Peix, SA, established in Huelva
p. 25), in connection with Project No 93.IT.06.016 entitled                  (Spain), represented by J.-R. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier and
‘Pilot demonstration project for forestry, agricultural and food             D. Domínguez Pérez, lawyers, against Commission of the
programmes in marginal hill areas (France, Italy)’ — the Court               European Communities (Agents: initially L. Visaggio and
of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts,                  J. Guerra Fernández, and subsequently S. Pardo Quintillán and
President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; J. Palacio González,              J. Guerra Fernández) — application for annulment of the
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment             Commission decision of 19 March 2001 reducing the aid
on 13 March 2003, in which it:                                               granted to José Martí Peix SA by Commission Decision
                                                                             C(91) 2874 final/11 of 16 December 1991, as amended by
1.    Annuls Commission Decision C(2000) 2388 of 14 August                   Commission Decision C(93) 1131 final/4 of 12 May 1993, for
      2000 withdrawing the financial assistance of the European              a project to create a joint enterprise in the fisheries sector —
      Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund granted to the                the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of
      Comunità Montana della Valnerina by Commission Decision                K. Lenaerts, President, and J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges;
      C(93) 3182 of 10 November 1993 concerning grant of a                   B. Pastor, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 March
      contribution from the EAGGF, Guidance Section, pursuant to             2003, in which it:
      Council Regulation (EEC) No 4256/88 of 19 December 1988
      laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC)               1.     Dismisses the application;
      No 2052/88 as regards the EAGGF, Guidance Section (OJ
      1988 L 374, p. 25), in connection with Project
                                                                             2.     Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
      No 93.IT.06.016 entitled ‘Pilot demonstration project for
      forestry, agriculture and food production in marginal hill areas
      (France, Italy)’, in so far as the Commission did not limit its
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.
      demand for repayment of the contribution to the sums
      corresponding to the part of the project which, under the award
      decision, were to be carried out by the applicant itself.


title: Case T-157/17: Action brought on 15 March 2017 — Ostvesta v Commission

text:
               14.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/26

         Action brought on 15 March 2017 — Ostvesta v Commission
   (Case T-157/17)
   (2017/C 269/38)
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Parties

      Applicant: Ostvesta SIA (Riga, Latvia) (represented by: J. Davidovičs, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul Mission Report THOR (2013) 11413-07/05/2013 of the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF), together with its 15 annexes, Final Report OF/2010/0827/B1, Report No OF/2010/0827 and Report THOR (2011) 27463, in view of the serious illegalities vitiating those acts and the recommended measures adopted on the basis of those acts;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      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 that the contested measures are binding on the State tax authorities and courts and have direct legal effects that harm the interests and the personal and actual rights of the applicant, altering its legal position, and are therefore challengeable acts, taking into consideration:

                           —

                           the nature of customs duties as ‘EU own resources’ and the consequential obligations for Member States, which must collect those duties;

                           —

                           the nature of OLAF as the administrative investigating body that replaces the Commission in external investigations;

                           —

                           the role of the European Commission, as the institution with an enforcement function in relation to the application of the European Union’s Customs Code.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the contested measures are unlawful and are vitiated by irregularities, because:

                           —

                           they do not contain any of the essential information envisaged in Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 September 2013; that is to say, they lack information relating to the procedural guarantees in the investigation, to the persons involved in the investigation, to the hearing of the applicant’s legal representatives, or to the preliminary legal qualification;

                           —

                           they reject the responsibility of the competent authorities in an unreasoned and contradictory manner;

                           —

                           OLAF failed to fulfil its duty to conduct the investigation objectively and impartially and in accordance with the principle of presumption of innocence;

                           —

                           incorrect information is included in the Final Report because of the lack of a preliminary investigation or because of omissions in the preliminary investigation;

                           —

                           the Community legislation in the field of anti-dumping duties was infringed and misapplied;

                           —

                           the Community legislation and the legislation of the Republic of Taiwan concerning the obligation imposed on the Bureau of Foreign Trade of Taiwan to verify the origin of the goods which it certifies were infringed and misapplied;

                           —

                           Article 220(2)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code was infringed and misapplied;

                           —

                           the Treaties and the legal rules relating to their application, as well as the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, specifically Article 41 thereof, were infringed.


title: Case C-322/08: Action brought on 15 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/38

         Action brought on 15 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden
   (Case C-322/08)
   (2008/C 223/63)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Condou-Durande and J. Enegren, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 (1) or in any event by failing to notify the Commission thereof, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for the implementation of the Directive expired on 10 October 2006.

      (1)  on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted (OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12).


title: Case T-402/11: Order of the General Court of 18 October 2012 — Preparados Alimenticios del Sur v Commission

text:
               1.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 373/13

         Order of the General Court of 18 October 2012 — Preparados Alimenticios del Sur v Commission
   (Case T-402/11) (1)

   2012/C 373/22
   Language of the case: Spanish
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.


title: Case C-267/16: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court of Gibraltar (United Kingdom) made on 13 May 2016 – Albert Buhagiar, Wayne Piri, Stephanie Piri, Arthur Taylor, Henry Bonifacio, Colin Tomlinson, Darren Sheriff v The Hon. Gilbert Licudi QC MP Minister for Justice

text:
               18.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/32

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court of Gibraltar (United Kingdom) made on 13 May 2016 – Albert Buhagiar, Wayne Piri, Stephanie Piri, Arthur Taylor, Henry Bonifacio, Colin Tomlinson, Darren Sheriff v The Hon. Gilbert Licudi QC MP Minister for Justice
   (Case C-267/16)
   (2016/C 260/40)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Supreme Court of Gibraltar

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Albert Buhagiar, Wayne Piri, Stephanie Piri, Arthur Taylor, Henry Bonifacio, Colin Tomlinson, Darren Sheriff

      Defendant: The Hon. Gilbert Licudi QC MP Minister for Justice

      Questions referred

               1.

               If the EFP provisions in the Directive (1) concern only the free movement of goods, can they nonetheless apply to Gibraltar on the basis that they do not involve a trade or commercial transaction and are therefore outside the scope of the derogations granted to Gibraltar under the 1972 Act of Accession?

               2.

               Are the provisions of the Directive concerning the EFP, as regards hunters and sports target shooters, applicable to Gibraltar on the ground that they concern the free movement of services?

               3.

               Are the provisions of the Directive concerning the EFP, as regards hunters and sports target shooters, invalid on the ground that they concern the free movement of persons and have therefore been adopted under the wrong legal basis?

      (1)  Council Directive 91/477/EEC of 18 June 1991 on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons

      OJ L 256, p. 51


title: Case C-233/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen — Belgium lodged on 26 June 2009 — G.A. Dijkman and M.A. Dijkman-Lavaleije v Belgische Staat

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen — Belgium lodged on 26 June 2009 — G.A. Dijkman and M.A. Dijkman-Lavaleije v Belgische Staat
   (Case C-233/09)
   2009/C 220/38
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hof van beroep te Antwerpen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: G.A. Dijkman and M.A. Dijkman-Lavaleije

      Defendant: Belgische Staat

      Question referred

   Is it an infringement of Article 56(1) of the EC Treaty for residents of Belgium who invest in other countries, such as the Netherlands, with a view to avoiding the supplementary municipal tax due under Article 465 WIB92 to be obliged to use a Belgian intermediary for the payment out of income from moveable assets, whereas residents of Belgium who invest in Belgium always benefit from the system of withholding tax relief under Article 313 WIB92 and are thus able to avoid the supplementary municipal tax provided for in Article 465 WIB92, since withholding tax on movable assets has already been withheld at source?


title: Case C-482/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte dei Conti, Sezione Giurisdizionale per la Regione Siciliana (Italy) lodged on 6 October 2010 — Teresa Cicala v Regione Siciliana

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/25

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte dei Conti, Sezione Giurisdizionale per la Regione Siciliana (Italy) lodged on 6 October 2010 — Teresa Cicala v Regione Siciliana
   (Case C-482/10)
   ()
   2010/C 328/42
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte dei Conti, Sezione Giurisdizionale per la Regione Siciliana

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Teresa Cicala

      Defendant: Regione Siciliana

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are the interpretation and application of Article 3 of Law 241/1990 and of Article 3 of Sicilian Regional Law 10/1991 — in relation to Article 1 of Law 241/90, which requires the Italian administrative authorities to apply the principles of European Union law, pursuant to the obligation to state reasons for the acts of public authorities laid down in the second paragraph of Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and in the third indent of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — to the effect that measures of public authorities in a private-law form — that is to say, measures relating to individual rights and which are in any event mandatory, in matters relating to pensions — may be exempt from the obligation to state reasons, compatible with European Union law, and does such a case amount to infringement of an essential procedural requirement governing an administrative measure?

               2.

               Is the first sentence of Article 21g(2) of Law 241/1990, as interpreted by the administrative case-law — in relation to the obligation to state reasons for an administrative measure laid down by Article 3 of Law 241/1990 and by Sicilian Regional Law 10/1991, in conjunction with the obligation to state reasons for the acts of public authorities laid down by the second paragraph of Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the third indent of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — compatible with Article 1 of Law 241/1990, which requires the administrative authorities to apply the principles of European Union law, and, consequently, are the interpretation and application of that interpretation whereby the authorities may supplement a statement of reasons for an administrative measure in court proceedings compatible and admissible?


title: Case T-550/12: Order of the General Court of 3 June 2013 — bachmaier v OHIM — (oto-soft)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/83

         Order of the General Court of 3 June 2013 — bachmaier v OHIM — (oto-soft)
   (Case T-550/12) (1)

   2013/C 225/190
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 23.2.2013.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) 10 January 2002 In Case C-480/99 P: Gerry Plant and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Action for annulment under Article 33 of the ECSC Treaty — Admissibility — Audi alteram partem rule in judicial proceedings)

text:
6.4.2002                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 84/15
Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ                  (Regional Civil Court, Vienna) (Austria) for a preliminary ruling
1975 L 194, p. 39), as amended by Council Directive                        in the proceedings pending before that court between Clean
91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32), Article 6               Car Autoservice GmbH and Stadt Wien, Republik Österreich
of Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on                     — on the interpretation of the first subparagraph of
hazardous waste (OJ 1991 L 377, p. 20), and Article 14 of                  Article 104(5) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice,
European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of                      in codified version 1999/C 65/01 of 6 March 1999 (OJ 1999
20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste (OJ                      C 65, p. 1) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
1994 L 365, p. 10), the Court (Second Chamber), composed                   N. Colneric, President of the Second Chamber, acting as
of: N. Colneric, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen and                President of the Sixth Chamber, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet,
V. Skouris (Rapporteur), Judges, Advocate General: J. Mischo,              R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and V. Skouris, Judges; L.A. Geel-
Registrar: H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a                  hoed, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator,
judgment on 24 January 2002, in which it has ruled:                        for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 December 2001,
                                                                           in which it has ruled:
1.    Declares that, by not forwarding to the Commission information
      concerning plans for the management and disposal of waste
                                                                           Article 104(5) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, in
      and hazardous waste in respect of the regions of Sicily and
                                                                           codified version 1999/C 65/01 of 6 March 1999, is to be
      Basilicata, or information concerning plans for the management
                                                                           interpreted as meaning that payment of the costs incurred by the
      of packaging and packaging waste in respect of all the Italian
                                                                           parties to the main proceedings for the purposes of the procedure
      regions, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                           under Article 234 EC for obtaining a preliminary ruling is governed
      under Article 7 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July
                                                                           by the domestic law rules applicable to the proceedings before the
      1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC
                                                                           national court, provided that those rules are not less favourable than
      of 18 March 1991, Article 6 of Council Directive 91/689/EEC
                                                                           those applicable to similar procedural steps which may be taken in
      of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste, and Article 14 of
                                                                           such proceedings in accordance with national law.
      European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of
      20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste;
2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                        (1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.
(1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                10 January 2002
                        of 6 December 2001
in Case C-472/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                  In Case C-480/99 P: Gerry Plant and Others v Commission
the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien): Clean Car                                  of the European Communities (1)
Autoservice GmbH v Stadt Wien, Republik Österreich (1)
                                                                           (Appeal — Action for annulment under Article 33 of the
(Article 234 EC — Costs of the parties to the main                         ECSC Treaty — Admissibility — Audi alteram partem rule
proceedings — Article 104(5) of the Rules of Procedure of                                        in judicial proceedings)
                              the Court)
                                                                                (2002/C 84/24)
                           (2002/C 84/23)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                    (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                                            in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-472/99: reference to the Court under Article 234                 In Case C-480/99 P, Gerry Plant and Others (agents: B. Hewson,
EC from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien                       barrister, instructed by T. Graham, solicitor): Appeal against
 ---pagebreak--- C 84/16                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           6.4.2002
the order of the Court of First Instance of the European                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Communities (Second Chamber) of 29 September 1999 in
Joined Cases T-148/98 and T-162/98 Evans and Others v
Commission [1999] ECR II-2837, seeking to have that order
set aside, the other parties to the proceedings being: Com-                                          (Sixth Chamber)
mission of the European Communities (agents: M. Erhart
and B. Doherty) and South Wales Small Mines Association,
established in Fochriw, Near Bargoed (United Kingdom),                                               24 January 2002
(agents: T. Sharpe, QC, and M. Brealey, barrister, instructed by
S. Llewellyn Jones, solicitor) the Court (Sixth Chamber),
composed of: F. Macken, President of the Chamber, C. Gul-
mann, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and                       in Case C-500/99 P: Conserve Italia Soc. Coop. arl v
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges, Advocate General: D. Ruiz-                           Commission of the European Communities (1)
Jarabo Colomer, Registrar: R. Grass, has given a judgment on
10 January 2002, in which it:
                                                                            (Appeal — Agriculture — EAGGF — Discontinuance of
                                                                            financial aid — Regulation (EEC) No 355/77 — Regulation
                                                                                (EEC) No 4253/88 — Principle of proportionality)
1.   Sets aside the order of the Court of First Instance of 29 Septem-
     ber 1999 in Joined Cases T-148/98 and T-162/98 Evans
     and Others v Commission in so far as:
                                                                                (2002/C 84/25)
     —     it dismissed the action in Case T-148/98 as inadmissible;
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
     —     it joined Cases T-148/98 and T-168/98;
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
     —     it stated that it was unnecessary to rule on the application
           for legal aid made in Case T-148/98 or on the application
           for leave to intervene made by PowerGen UK plc, National
           Power plc and British Coal Corporation in the same case;
                                                                            In Case C-500/99 P: Conserve Italia Soc. Coop. arl, formerly
                                                                            Massalombarda Colombani SpA, established in San Lazzaro di
     —     it ordered the applicants in Case T-148/98 to bear their         Savena (Italy), (agents: M. Averani, A. Pisaneschi, P. de Caterini
           own costs and, jointly and severally, to pay those incurred      and S. Zunarelli): Appeal against the judgment of the Court of
           by the Commission of the European Communities in Case            First Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber)
           T-162/98;                                                        of 12 October 1999 in Case T-216/96 Conserve Italia v
                                                                            Commission [1999] ECR II-3139, seeking to have that judg-
                                                                            ment set aside the other party to the proceedings being:
     —     it ordered the applicant in Case T-162/98, jointly and           Commission of the European Communities (agent: F. Ruggeri
           severally with the applicants in Case T-148/98, to pay           Laderchi, assisted by M. Moretto), the Court (Sixth Chamber),
           the costs incurred by the Commission of the European             composed of: F. Macken (Rapporteur), President of the
           Communities in Case T-148/98;                                    Chamber, C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen, V. Skouris and J.N. Cunha
                                                                            Rodrigues, Judges, Advocate General: S. Alber, Registrar:
                                                                            L. Hewlett, Administrator, has given a judgment on 24 January
                                                                            2002, in which it:
2.   Refers Case T-148/98 back to the Court of First Instance to
     enable it to give judgment on the substance of the case;
                                                                            1.    Dismisses the appeal;
3.   Reserves the costs in Case T-148/98.
                                                                            2.    Orders Conserve Italia Soc. Coop. arl to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2004 in Case T-338/03: Eridania Sadam and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector — Price regime — Regionalisation — Deficit areas — Classification of Italy — Marketing year 2003/2004 — Regulation No 1158/2003 — Action for annulment — Natural and legal persons — Inadmissibility)

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/27

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 8 July 2004
   in Case T-338/03: Eridania Sadam and Others v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector - Price regime - Regionalisation - Deficit areas - Classification of Italy - Marketing year 2003/2004 - Regulation No 1158/2003 - Action for annulment - Natural and legal persons - Inadmissibility)
   (2004/C 262/52)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case T-338/03: Eridania Sadam SpA, established in Bologna (Italy), Italia Zuccheri SpA, established in Bologna (Italy), Zuccherificio del Molise SpA, established in Termoli (Italy), CO. PRO. B — Cooperativa Produttori Bieticoli a rl, established in Minerbio, (Italy), SFIR — Società Fondiaria Industriale Romagnola SpA, established in Cesana (Italy), represented by G. Pittalis, I. Vigliotti, G.M. Roberti, P. Ziotti and A. Franchi, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against the Commission of the European Communities (Agent: L. Visaggio, with an address for service in Luxembourg), supported by the Council of the European Union (Agent: F. Ruggeri Laderchi) — application for annulment of Article 1(c) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1158/2003 of 30 June 2003 fixing the derived intervention prices for white sugar for the 2003/04 marketing year (OJ 2003 L 162, p. 24) — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of H. Legal, President, M.Vilaras and I. Wiszniewska-Bialecka, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 8 July 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The application is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               There is no need to give a decision on the applications to intervene by Azienda Agricola Palazzina ss. and Others, Associazione Nazionale Bieticoltori, Consorzio Nazionale Bieticoltori and Associazione Bieticoltori Italiani.

               3.

               The applicants are to bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the Commission.

               4.

               The Council is to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 289 of 29.11.2003.


title: Case F-108/13: Action brought on 28 October 2013 — ZZ v Council

text:
               25.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/41

         Action brought on 28 October 2013 — ZZ v Council
   (Case F-108/13)
   2014/C 24/77
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: J.-N. Louis and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the applicant’s salary statements for January, February and March 2013, established pursuant to Council decision of 20 December 2012 by which it refused to adopt the Commission’s proposal for a regulation adjusting, with the effect from 1 July 2012, the remuneration and pensions of the officials and other servants of the European Union and the correction coefficients applied thereto.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the applicant’s salary statements issued since 15 January 2013;

               —

               order the Council to pay the applicant arrears of remuneration to which he is entitled from 1 July 2012 together with late-payment interest calculated, with effect from the date on which the arrears fell due, at the rate fixed by the ECB for main refinancing operations increased by two points;

               —

               order the Council to pay the applicant a symbolic EUR 1 as compensation for the non-material damage suffered as a result of the administrative errors repeatedly committed by the Council and the appointing authority;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs.


title: Case T-31/12: Action brought on 23 January 2012 — Région Poitou-Charentes v Commission

text:
               14.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 109/16

         Action brought on 23 January 2012 — Région Poitou-Charentes v Commission
   (Case T-31/12)
   2012/C 109/37
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Région Poitou-Charentes (Poitiers, France) (represented by: J. Capiaux, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the European Commission decision of 18 November 2011 refusing to close the Community initiative programme INTERREG III B ‘Atlantic Area’ 2000/2006 (reference CCI No 2001 RG 16 0 PC 006) adopted by the European Commission.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging the unlawfulness of the Commission decision, in so far as the signatory of the measure was not entitled to a delegated right of signature.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging disregard of essential procedural requirements, the Commission not being compliant with the mandatory time-limit imposed by Article 37(1) of Regulation No 1260/1999 (1) for stating its reasons why the applicant's final report was unsatisfactory.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging errors of law:

                           —

                           the Commission having alleged that the applicant did not comply with the rules concerning approval of the final report, whereas the rules of the monitoring committee provided for a scheme of implicit approval of that report at the expiry of a six day time-limit; and

                           —

                           the Commission having stated that the applicant’s report should have been drafted in English, whereas there is no rule requiring that a report be drafted in a language other than that of the managing authority (in this case French) in order to be valid.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging inadequate reasons for the contested decision.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging an abuse of power, the Commission having taken into account a ground which by its nature is extraneous to European interests in order to refuse to close the initiative programme in question.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (OJ 1999 L 161, p. 1).


title: Joined Cases C-175/07 to C-184/07: Order of the Court of 6 October 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Nanterre (France)) — SA des sucreries de Fontaine-le-Dun-Bolbec-Auffay (SAFBA) (C-175/07), Sucreries et Raffineries d'Erstein SA (C-176/07), Sucreries & Distilleries de Souppes — Ouvré Fils SA (C-177/07), Sucrerie de Bourgogne SA (C-178/07), Sucrerie Bourdon (C-179/07), Sucreries du Marquenterre SA (C-180/07), Cristal Union (C-181/07), Lesaffre Frères SA (C-182/07) Vermendoise Industries SAS (C-183/07), Sucreries de Toury et Usines annexes SA (C-184/07) v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Sugar — Production levies — Detailed rules for the application of the quota system — Taking into account of the quantities of sugar contained in processed products — Determination of the exportable surplus — Determination of the average loss)

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/10

         Order of the Court of 6 October 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Nanterre (France)) — SA des sucreries de Fontaine-le-Dun-Bolbec-Auffay (SAFBA) (C-175/07), Sucreries et Raffineries d'Erstein SA (C-176/07), Sucreries & Distilleries de Souppes — Ouvré Fils SA (C-177/07), Sucrerie de Bourgogne SA (C-178/07), Sucrerie Bourdon (C-179/07), Sucreries du Marquenterre SA (C-180/07), Cristal Union (C-181/07), Lesaffre Frères SA (C-182/07) Vermendoise Industries SAS (C-183/07), Sucreries de Toury et Usines annexes SA (C-184/07) v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers
   (Joined Cases C-175/07 to C-184/07) (1)

   (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Sugar - Production levies - Detailed rules for the application of the quota system - Taking into account of the quantities of sugar contained in processed products - Determination of the exportable surplus - Determination of the average loss)
   (2008/C 313/15)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Tribunal de grande instance de Nanterre (France)
   Parties

      Applicants: SA des sucreries de Fontaine-le-Dun-Bolbec-Auffay (SAFBA) (C-175/07), Sucreries et Raffineries d'Erstein SA (C-176/07), Sucreries & Distilleries de Souppes — Ouvré Fils SA (C-177/07), Sucrerie de Bourgogne SA (C-178/07), Sucrerie Bourdon (C-179/07), Sucreries du Marquenterre SA (C-180/07), Cristal Union (C-181/07), Lesaffre Frères SA (C-182/07) Vermendoise Industries SAS (C-183/07), Sucreries de Toury et Usines annexes SA (C-184/07)

      Defendants: Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal de grande instance de Nanterre — Validity, having regard to Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (OJ 2001 L 178, p. 1), and the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination, of Commission Regulation (EC) No 314/2002 of 20 February 2002 laying down detailed rules for the application of the quota system in the sugar sector (OJ 2002 L 50, p. 40) — Validity, having regard to Regulations (EC) No 1260/2001 and 314/2002, of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1686/2005 of 14 October 2005 setting the production levies and the coefficient for the additional levy in the sugar sector for the 2004/05 marketing year (OJ 2005 L 271, p. 12) — Production levies including quantities of sugar contained in processed products, exported without benefit of export refunds
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               Examination of Article 6(4) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 314/2002 of 20 February 2002 laying down detailed rules for the application of the quota system in the sugar sector, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 38/2004 of 9 January 2004, in so far as that provision does not, with regard to calculation of the production levy, provide for exclusion from the exportable surplus of the quantities of sugar contained in exported processed products for which no export refund has been granted has not shown that there are factors liable to affect its validity.

               2.

               Commission Regulation (EC) No 1686/2005 of 14 October 2005 setting the production levies and the coefficient for the additional levy in the sugar sector for the 2004/05 marketing year is invalid.

      (1)  OJ C 117, 26.5.2007.


title: Case C-425/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 16 August 2011 — Katja Ettwein v Finanzamt Konstanz

text:
               12.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 16 August 2011 — Katja Ettwein v Finanzamt Konstanz
   (Case C-425/11)
   2011/C 331/12
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Katja Ettwein

      Defendant: Finanzamt Konstanz

      Question referred

   Are the provisions of the Agreement of 21 June 1999 (1) between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons (BGBl. II 2001, 810 et seq.), which was passed as a Law by the Bundestag on 2 September (BGBl. II 2001, 810) and entered into force on 1 June (‘the Agreement on free movement’), in particular Articles 1, 2, 11, 16 and 21 thereof and Articles 9, 13 and 15 of Annex I thereto, to be interpreted as precluding a rule under which spouses who live in Switzerland and are subject to taxation in the Federal Republic of Germany on their entire taxable income cannot be granted joint assessment, regard being had to the ‘splitting’ regime?

      (1)  Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons — Final Act — Joint Declarations — Information relating to the entry into force of the seven Agreements with the Swiss Confederation in the sectors free movement of persons, air and land transport, public procurement, scientific and technological cooperation, mutual recognition in relation to conformity assessment, and trade in agricultural products, OJ 2002 L 114, p. 6.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 May 2001 in Case C-263/99: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Activity of transport consultant)

text:
14.7.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 200/23
No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical                 Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation
nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987                   of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —
L 256, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC)                   Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assess-
No 1153/97 of 24 June 1997 (OJ 1997 L 168, p. 35), and                   ment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — the Court (Sixth Chamber),
the validity of Regulation No 1153/97 and Commission                     composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, V. Skour-
Regulation (EC) No 2086/97 of 4 November 1997 amending                   is, R. Schintgen, F. Macken and N. Colneric (Rapporteur),
Annex I to Council Regulation No 2658/87 (OJ 1997 L 312,                 Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,
p. 1) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola,           Head of Division, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur),                    29 May 2001, in which it has ruled:
P. Jann, L. Sevón and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; A. Tizzano,
Advocat General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 June 2001, in which it              Upon a proper construction of Article 11A(3)(b) and C(1) of the
has ruled:                                                               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
Electronic circuit boards which enable automatic data-processing         assessment, the taxable amount in respect of goods supplied by mail
equipment and units thereof to process audio signals (sound              order from a catalogue to a customer for the customer’s own use
cards) are to be classified under heading 8471 of the Combined           where the supplier allows the customer a discount from the catalogue
Nomenclature, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC)                   price, a separate account being credited in the customer’s favour with
No 1153/97 of 24 June 1997 amending Annex I to Council                   the amount of that discount as and when instalment payments are
Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomencla-      paid to the supplier — a discount which may then be immediately
ture and on the Common Customs Tariff.                                   withdrawn or used in another way by the customer — is the full
                                                                         catalogue price of the goods sold to the customer, reduced accordingly
                                                                         by the amount of that discount at the time when it is withdrawn or
(1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.                                                 used in another way by the customer.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                          of 29 May 2001
                                                                                of 29 May 2001
in Case C-86/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the VAT and Duties Tribunal, London): Freemans plc v                     in Case C-263/99: Commission of the European Communi-
          Commissioners of Customs and Excise (1)                                              ties v Italian Republic (1)
(Sixth VAT Directive — Taxable amount — Discount                         (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
accounted for at the time of the supply — Price reduction                Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services —
                   after the supply takes place)                                          Activity of transport consultant)
                         (2001/C 200/40)                                                            (2001/C 200/41)
                   (Language of the case: English)                                            (Language of the case: Italian)
In Case C-86/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the VAT and Duties                                   in the European Court Reports)
Tribunal, London (United Kingdom), for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings pending before that court between Free-
mans plc and Commissioners of Customs and Excise — on the                In Case C-263/99: Commission of the European Communities
interpretation of Article 11A(3)b and C(1) of the Sixth Council          (Agents: initially A. Aresu and M. Patakia, and, subsequently,
 ---pagebreak--- C 200/24                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          14.7.2001
M. Patakia and G. Bisogni) v Italian Republic (Agents: U. Lean-            Bologna (Italy), Sadam Castiglionese SpA, established in Bolog-
za, assisted by O. Fiumara) — application for a declaration                na, Sadam Abruzzo SpA, established in Bologna, Zuccherificio
that, by placing restrictions on the pursuit of the activity of            del Molise SpA, established in Termoli (Italy), Società Fondiaria
transport consultant, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its        Industriale Romagnola SpA (SFIR), established in Cesena (Italy),
obligations under Articles 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty (now,                represented by V. Cerulli Irelli, G. Pittalis and G. Fanzini,
after amendment, Articles 43 EC and 49 EC) — the Court                     avvocati — appeal against the order of the Court of First
(Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the                 Instance of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber,
Chamber, V. Skouris, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), N. Colneric                Extended Composition) of 8 December 1998 in Case T-39/98
and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General;              Sadam Zuccherifici and Others v Council [1998] ECR II-4207,
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 May 2001, in               as amended by an order of 29 January 1999 (not published in
which it:                                                                  the European Court Reports), seeking to have the first order
                                                                           set aside, the other party to the proceedings being: Council of
1.    Declares that, by subjecting, in the context of Law No 264           the European Union, (Agents: J. Carbery and I. Dı́ez Parra) —
      Disciplina dell’attività di consulenza per la circolazione dei       the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola,
      mezzi di trasporto (Law No 264 on the activity of transport          President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and C. W.A. Tim-
      consultancy), of 8 August 1991, the pursuit of the activity          mermans (Rapporteur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate
      of transport consultant to possession of an administrative           General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
      authorisation, failing which liability to penalties is incurred,     a judgment on 31 May 2001, in which it:
      and by making its issue subject to the condition that nationals
      of other Member States reside in Italy and lodge a security, the     1.    Dismisses the appeal.
      Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      Articles 52 and 59 of the Treaty (now, after amendment,              2.    Orders Sadam Zuccherifici, divisione della SECI — Società
      Articles 43 EC and 49 EC);                                                 Esercizi Commerciali Industriali SpA, Sadam Castiglionese
                                                                                SpA, Sadam Abruzzo SpA, Zuccherificio del Molise SpA and
2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                              Società Fondiaria Industriale Romagnola SpA (SFIR) to pay
                                                                                the costs.
(1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 100 of 10.4.1999.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        (Fourth Chamber)                                                              of 31 May 2001
                          of 31 May 2001                                   in Case C-43/99 [reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                           the Conseil supérieur des assurances sociales (Luxem-
in Case C-41/99 P: Sadam Zuccherifici, divisione della                     bourg)]: Ghislain Leclere and Alina Deaconescu v Caisse
SECI — Società Esercizi Commerciali Industriali SpA and                                 nationale des prestations familiales (1)
         Others v Council of the European Union (1)
                                                                           (Regulations (EEC) Nos 1408/71 and 1612/68 — Luxem-
                                                                           bourg maternity, childbirth and child-raising allowances —
(Appeal — Sugar — Regulation (EC) No 2613/97 — Aid to
                                                                           Residence condition — Rights of a person receiving a pension
beet sugar producers — Abolition — Marketing year
                                                                           but not resident in the Member State responsible for the
2001/02 — Action for annulment — Natural or legal
                                                                           pension — Family allowances and family benefits — Concept
                     persons — Inadmissible)
                                                                                of ‘worker’ and ‘social advantage’)
                          (2001/C 200/42)                                                             (2001/C 200/43)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                                             (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                                              in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-41/99: Sadam Zuccherifici, divisione della SECI —                In Case C-43/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
Società Esercizi Commerciali Industriali SpA, established in               the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Conseil supérieur


title: Case C-136/06: Order of the President of the Court of 29 August 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Malta

text:
               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/32

         Order of the President of the Court of 29 August 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Malta
   (Case C-136/06) (1)

   (2007/C 297/53)

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 131, 3.6.2006.


title: Case T-411/14: Action brought on 10 June 2014 — Coca-Cola v OHIM (Shape of a bottle)

text:
               25.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/39

         Action brought on 10 June 2014 — Coca-Cola v OHIM (Shape of a bottle)
   (Case T-411/14)
   2014/C 282/52
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: The Coca-Cola Company (Atlanta, United States) (represented by: D. Stone and A. Dykes, Solicitors, and S. Malynicz, Barrister)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 March 2014 given in Case R 540/2013-2;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Three-dimensional mark representing a shape of a bottle for goods in Classes 6, 21, 32 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 5 32  687

      Decision of the Examiner: Found the trade mark not eligible for registration in respect of a part of the goods applied for

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) CTMR .


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 November 2000 in Case C-436/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court): HMIL Ltd v Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry (Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Special export refunds and private storage aid for certain pieces of beef)

text:
10.3.2001                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                                C 79/3
for the transmission of television signals (OJ 1995 L 281,                   communicating those provisions to the Commission, the
p. 51) or by not taking the measures necessary to comply                     French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
therewith, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations          that directive — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of:
under that directive — the Court (Third Chamber), composed                   C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, J.-P.
of: C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, J.-P.                 Puissochet and F. Macken, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate General;
Puissochet and F. Macken, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate General;               R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 November
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 November                     2000, in which it:
2000, in which it:
                                                                             1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period              the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
      the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to             comply with Directive 97/68/EC of the European Parliament
      comply with Directive 95/47/EC of the European Parliament                    and of the Council of 16 December 1997 on the approximation
      and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the use of standards                of the laws of the Member States relating to measures against
      for the transmission of television signals, the French Republic              the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from
      has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;                   internal combustion engines to be installed in non-road mobile
                                                                                machinery, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.                                 under that directive;
                                                                             2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 299 of 16.10.1999.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 299 of 16.10.1999.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Third Chamber)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                        of 23 November 2000                                                        of 30 November 2000
in Case C-320/99: Commission of the European Communi-                        in Case C-436/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                      ties v French Republic (1)                             the Supreme Court): HMIL Ltd v Minister for Agriculture,
                                                                                Food and Forestry (1)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Directive 97/68/EC — Non-road mobile machinery —                             (Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets —
        Emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants)                      Special export refunds and private storage aid for certain
                                                                                pieces of beef)
                             (2001/C 79/05)
                                                                                (2001/C 79/06)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                             In Case C-436/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                             the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Supreme Court
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             (Ireland), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
                                                                             before that court between HMIL Ltd and Minister for Agri-
In Case C-320/99: Commission of the European Communities                     culture, Food and Forestry — on the interpretation of Com-
(Agent: M. Nolin) v French Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-                      mission Regulation (EEC) No 1964/82 of 20 July 1982 laying
Bellanger and G. Taillandier) — application for a declaration                down the conditions for granting special export refunds on
that, by not adopting within the prescribed period the laws,                 certain cuts of boned meat of bovine animals (OJ 1982 L 212,
regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply                p. 48, and the corrigendum at OJ 1982 L 273, p. 43), as
with Directive 97/68/EC of the European Parliament and of                    amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3169/87 of
the Council of 16 December 1997 on the approximation of                      23 October 1987 amending Regulations (EEC) No 32/82,
the laws of the Member States relating to measures against the               (EEC) No 1964/82 and (EEC) No 74/84 in the matter of
emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from internal                 customs export formalities for certain beef on which special
combustion engines to be installed in non-road mobile                        refunds are granted (OJ 1987 L 301, p. 21), and of Commission
machinery (OJ 1998 L 59, p. 1) or, in any event, by not                      Regulation (EEC) No 2675/88 of 29 August 1988 providing
 ---pagebreak--- C 79/4                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          10.3.2001
for the grant of private storage aid fixed at a standard rate in           5.    On a proper construction of Regulation No 2675/88, of
advance in respect of carcases, half-carcases, hindquarters and                  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1091/80 of 2 May 1980
forequarters from adult male bovine animals (OJ 1988 L 239,                      laying down detailed rules for granting private storage aid for
p. 20), as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No                             beef and veal and of Commission Regulation (EEC) No
3258/88 of 21 October 1988 (OJ 1988 L 289, p. 52) — the                          2220/85 of 22 July 1985 laying down common detailed rules
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola, President                     for the application of the system of securities for agricultural
of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and L. Sevón (Rapporteur),                        products, as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC)
Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal                        No 1181/87 of 29 April 1987, where the competent authority
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                        establishes that a carton of meat subject to the scheme covered
30 November 2000, in which it has ruled:                                         by Regulation No 2675/88 contains items prohibited by
                                                                                Article 4(4) thereof, such as trimmings or separate pieces of fat
                                                                                rolled up within pieces of meat, those regulations permit it to
                                                                                hold that the entire contents of the carton do not qualify for
1.   On a proper construction of Article 1 of Commission Regulation              private storage aid and to forfeit the security given for the
     (EEC) No 1964/82 of 20 July 1982 laying down the                            advance payment made in respect of that carton plus 20 %.
     conditions for granting special export refunds on certain cuts of
     boned meat of bovine animals, as amended by Commission                6.    On a proper construction of the Community regulations, where
     Regulation (EEC) No 3169/87 of 23 October 1987 amending                     checks relating to cartons of meat reveal evidence in particular
     Regulations (EEC) No 32/82, (EEC) No 1964/82 and (EEC)                      production plants of a deliberate and persistent policy of
     No 74/84 in the matter of customs export formalities for                    infringement of Regulations No 1964/82 and No 2675/88,
     certain beef on which special refunds are granted, every piece of           the competent authority may extrapolate the results of those
     meat had to be individually wrapped, whatever its size, weight              checks across the production of the production plants in
     and nature, and without distinguishing, in particular, between              question.
     scraps and trimmings.
                                                                           7.    Where the sampling checks have revealed evidence of a deliberate
                                                                                and persistent policy of storing material which does not qualify
                                                                                for the private storage aid scheme by virtue of Article 4(4) of
2.   On a proper construction of Articles 7 and 8 of the same                    Regulation No 2675/88, the competent authority is permitted
     regulation, the Member States had the right to exclude from                 to refuse to grant private storage aid and to forfeit the security
     entitlement to special export refunds trimmings whose weight                in its entirety, pursuant to Article 5(2)(c) of Regulation
     was below a certain limit, such as a limit of 100 grams.                    No 1091/80, in respect of the whole of the material to which
                                                                                it has extrapolated the results of the check.
3.   On a proper construction of Article 4(4) of Commission                (1) OJ C 48 of 20.2.1999.
     Regulation (EEC) No 2675/88 of 29 August 1988 providing
     for the grant of private storage aid fixed at a standard rate in
     advance in respect of carcases, half-carcases, hindquarters and
     forequarters from adult male bovine animals, as amended by
     Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3258/88 of 21 October
     1988, trimmings left over from cutting or boning, whatever
     their weight, did not qualify for private storage aid under                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
     contracts entered into pursuant to that regulation.
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
                                                                                of 30 November 2000
4.   On a proper construction of Regulation No 1964/82, of
     Council Regulation (EEC) No 565/80 of 4 March 1980 on                 in Case C-422/99: Commission of the European Communi-
     the advance payment of export refunds in respect of agricultural                            ties v Italian Republic (1)
     products, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No
     2026/83 of 18 July 1983, and of Commission Regulation
                                                                           (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
     (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down
                                                                                to implement Directive 97/51/EC)
     common detailed rules for the application of the system
     of export refunds on agricultural products, as amended by
     Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3494/88 of 9 November                                              (2001/C 79/07)
     1988 and Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3993/88 of
     21 December 1988, where the competent authority establishes                                (Language of the case: Italian)
     that a carton of meat subject to the scheme covered by
     Regulation No 1964/82 contains items prohibited by the
     legislation, whether trimmings rolled up within other pieces of       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
     meat, separate pieces of fat rolled up within pieces of meat, or                          in the European Court Reports)
     non-individually wrapped pieces of meat, those regulations
     permit it to hold that the entire contents of the carton do not       In Case C-422/99: Commission of the European Communities
     qualify for special export refunds and to forfeit the security given  (Agents: C. Schmidt and G. Bisogni) v Italian Republic (Agent:
     for the advance payment made in respect of that carton plus           Professor U. Leanza, assisted by I.M. Braguglia) — application
     20 %.                                                                 for a declaration that, by failing to adopt or, in any event, by


title: Case C-638/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 November 2013 — Council of the European Union v Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd, European Commission (Appeal — Dumping — Imports of cotton-type bed linen originating in Pakistan — Regulation (EC) No 384/96 — Article 3(7) — Concept of ‘other factors’ )

text:
               11.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/5

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 November 2013 — Council of the European Union v Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd, European Commission
   (Case C-638/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Dumping - Imports of cotton-type bed linen originating in Pakistan - Regulation (EC) No 384/96 - Article 3(7) - Concept of ‘other factors’)
   2014/C 9/06
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, Agent, and G. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd (represented by: L. Ruessmann, avocat), European Commission (represented by: A. Stobiecka-Kuik, Agent, and E. McGovern, Barrister)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 27 September 2011 in Case T-199/04 Gul Ahmed Textile Mills v Council which annulled, in so far as it concerned Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd, Council Regulation (EC) No 397/2004 of 2 March 2004 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of cotton-type bed linen originating in Pakistan (OJ 2004 L 66, p. 1) — Infringement of Article 3(7) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1) — Determination of injury — Establishment of a causal link between the dumped imports and the injury caused — Factors to be taken into consideration

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 27 September 2011 in Case T-199/04 Gul Ahmed Textile Mills v Council;

               2.

               Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

               3.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.2012.


title: Case T-381/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 September 2008 — Italian Republic v Commission

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/65

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 September 2008 — Italian Republic v Commission
   (Case T-381/07) (1)

   (2008/C 301/126)

      Language of the case: Italian

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

      (1)  OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.


title: Case T-83/13 P: Appeal brought on 11 February 2013 by BS against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 February 2012 in Case F-90/11, BS v Commission

text:
               6.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 101/29

         Appeal brought on 11 February 2013 by BS against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 February 2012 in Case F-90/11, BS v Commission
   (Case T-83/13 P)
   2013/C 101/58
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: BS (Messina, Italy) (represented by C. Pollicino, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               Declare the appeal admissible and well founded;

               —

               Set aside the judgment under appeal;

               —

               Confirm that the ‘Rules on insurance against the risk of accident and occupational disease for officials of the European Communities’ cover ‘the entire cutaneous system’ and not just ‘deep cutaneous burns and pathological cutaneous scarring’;

               —

               Order that a new medical committee be set up, with the task of reviewing the appellant’s case;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present appeal is brought against the judgment dismissing an action seeking, in essence, annulment of the decision by which the appointing authority concluded the procedure initiated for the purpose of Article 73 of the Staff Rules of Officials of the European Union by finding that the appellant did not suffer physical or mental impairments as a result of an attack on the appellant.
   The appellant relies on two grounds of appeal.

               1.

               The first ground of appeal, alleging breach of the third paragraph of Article 22 of the Rules on Insurance.
               It is submitted in this regard that, contrary to the requirements of those rules, the medical committee did not reach its decision as a collegiate body and, when it encountered a legal problem, failed to declare that it lacked competence.

               2.

               Second ground of appeal, alleging breach of Article 73 of the European reference schedule for the assessment of physical and mental impairments for medical purposes.
               According to the appellant, by the judgment under appeal, the Civil Service Tribunal dismissed the action without providing the specific interpretation sought as to whether the Common Rules in question cover the entire cutaneous system, or only deep cutaneous burns and pathological cutaneous scarring.


title: Case C-384/13: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 4 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Estación de Servicio Pozuelo 4 SL v GALP Energía España SAU (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Article 81 EC — Exclusive distribution agreement for motor-vehicle fuels and other fuels — Regulation (EEC) No 1984/83 — Article 12(2) — Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 — Articles 4(a) and 5(a) — Period of exclusivity — Agreement of minor importance)

text:
               16.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/3

         Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 4 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Estación de Servicio Pozuelo 4 SL v GALP Energía España SAU
   (Case C-384/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 81 EC - Exclusive distribution agreement for motor-vehicle fuels and other fuels - Regulation (EEC) No 1984/83 - Article 12(2) - Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 - Articles 4(a) and 5(a) - Period of exclusivity - Agreement of minor importance))
   (2015/C 056/03)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Estación de Servicio Pozuelo 4 SL

      Respondent: GALP Energía España SAU

      Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               A contract, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the creation of a surface right, in favour of a supplier of petroleum products, allowing that supplier to build a service station and let the service station to the owner of the land, and which contains a long-term exclusive purchasing obligation, does not have the effect of restricting competition appreciably and is therefore not caught by the prohibition set out in Article 81(1) EC given that, first, that supplier’s market share is less than 3 %, compared to the cumulative market share of about 70 % held by three other suppliers, and, second, the duration of that contract is not manifestly excessive compared to the average duration of contracts generally concluded on the relevant market, which is a matter for the referring court to verify.

               2)

               Article 12(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 of 22 December 1999 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices must be interpreted as meaning that a contract — containing a non-compete clause — which was already in force on 31 May 2000 and which satisfies the conditions laid down by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1984/83 of 22 June 1983 on the application of Article 85(3) of the Treaty to categories of exclusive purchasing agreements, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1582/97 of 30 July 1997, but which does not satisfy the conditions laid down by Regulation No 2790/1999, is excepted from the prohibition set out in Article 81(1) EC until 31 December 2001.

      (1)  OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.


title: Case T-316/04: Action brought on 2 August 2004 by Wam SpA against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/46

         Action brought on 2 August 2004 by Wam SpA against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-316/04)
   (2004/C 262/88)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action was a brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 2 August 2004 against the Commission of the European Communities by Wam SpA, represented by Ernesto Giuliani, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that Court of First Instance should:

               —

               annul Decision C(2004) 1812 final of the Commission of the European Communities of 19 May 2004 concerning State aids granted by Italy to Wam SpA between 1995 and 2000, which Wam SpA considers and states to be compatible with the common market;

               —

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

         Pleas and main arguments adduced in support:
   Following a complaint by the Morton Machine Co Ltd, the Commission decided to commence a formal investigation procedure, as provided for by Article 88(2) EC concerning two cases of subsidised financing granted by Italy to Wam SpA between 1995 and 2000. In the contested decision, the Commission decided to classify those measures as State aid and declared them to be in breach of article 87 EC and thus incompatible with the common market.
   In support of its claims, the applicant states:

               —

               that the Commission infringed the general principles of impartiality, autonomy, independence, fairness and propriety in the exercise of its functions, having treated the complaint from Morton Machine Ltd in a non-objective manner and having rejected, in that context, and without stating its reasons for doing so, the proposal from Wam SpA that it should repay the difference between the open market interest rate paid by Wam SpA when the individual instalments were disbursed and the interest charged on the two amounts of subsidised financing at issue;

               —

               that the Commission infringed, or misapplied, Article 87 EC by considering to be incompatible with the common market, in so far as they were liable to distort competition in intra-Community relations, aids granted to Wam SpA notwithstanding the absence of any competitive relationship between Wam SpA and Morton Machine Ltd, since Wam SpA did not produce or market industrial mixers and Wam Engineering Ltd was not a subsidiary of Wam SpA, an independent company which has its registered office in England and is governed by English law;

               —

               that the Commission infringed Article 88(2) EC by treating as illegal State aid granted to Wam SpA in implementation of an Italian law, namely Law No 394 of 29 July 1981, which the Commission had declared to be compatible with Community law, or, that it infringed the Community principle of legal certainty, since it did not adopt any legislation regarding any need far action to achieve market penetration in countries outside the EU.

               —

               that the Commission infringed, or misapplied, Articles 87 and 88 EC by taking the view that it had not been notified of the legal basis for the aids disbursed, and by considering them to be incompatible with the common market simply because of non-notification, and not on the basis of a proper substantive assessment;

               —

               that the Commission infringed Article 87 EC and Article 2(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 69/2001 by classifying as export aid, and as such outside the scope of the de minimis rules, aids that were not linked to a specific quantity of exported products but were simply used for an attempt to achieve market penetration outside the EU.

         The applicant also alleges, in several respects, breach of the duty to state the reasons on which measures are based, and also the principles of justice, equity and sound administration.


title: Case T-356/12: Action brought on 6 August 2012 — Debonair Trading Internacional v OHIM — Ibercosmetica (SÔ:UNIC)

text:
               13.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/12

         Action brought on 6 August 2012 — Debonair Trading Internacional v OHIM — Ibercosmetica (SÔ:UNIC)
   (Case T-356/12)
   2012/C 311/16
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Debonair Trading Internacional Lda (Funcha, Madeira) (represented by: T. Alkin, Barrister)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ibercosmetica, SA de CV (Mexico City, Mexico)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 4 June 2012 in case R 1033/2011-4;

               —

               Order the other party to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘SÔ:UNIC’, for goods in class 3 — Community trade mark application No 8197972

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: A series of 24 Community, International, UK and Irish registered trade marks consisting of the word ‘SO’ combined with other material, for goods in class 3; A series of 17 unregistered signs consisting of the word ‘SO’ combined with other material, used in connection with goods in class 3

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law:

               —

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

               —

               Infringement of Rule 15(2)(b)(iii) of Commission Regulation No 2868/95; and

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(4) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Action brought on 6 March 1997 by H. Buwalda against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-50/97)

text:
No C 142/24          EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   10 . 5 . 97
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant considers that, by authorizing payment of               ( a ) primarily: order the Community to pay to the
the third tranche of aid to Air France, the Commission                      applicant the sum of Fl 385 583 , together with interest
disregarded Articles 92 ( 3 ) and 93 ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) of the EC              thereon at the rate of 8 % per annum from 19 May
Treaty and undermined the coherence of the procedures                       1992 until the date of payment in full;
for monitoring State aid and anti-competitive practices in
the common market. In the applicant's view, the
                                                                            in the alternative: order the Community to pay the
communication is vitiated by errors of form, of law and of
                                                                            applicant such sum as the Court in its wisdom shall
fact, and should consequently be annulled under
                                                                            think fit, amounting to not less than Fl 172 213
Article 173 of the EC Treaty.
                                                                            ( namely, the amount resulting from the application of
                                                                            Regulation (EEC) No 2187/93 ), together with interest
According to the applicant, the communication is void,                      thereon at the rate of 8% per annum from 19 May
since it infringes essential procedural requirements by                     1992 until the date of the payment in full;
authorizing payment of the third tranche of the aid
without any prior examination of its compatibility with
                                                                      ( b) order the Community to pay the costs .
the common market in accordance with the procedure laid
down in Article 93 ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty.
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
In addition, the applicant considers that the
communication is void by reason of infringement of                    The applicant, a SLOM producer, is seeking compensation
essential procedural requirements, since it authorizes                pursuant to Article 178 in conjunction with the second
payment of the third tranche of the aid prior to the                  paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty for the damage
outcome of the proceeding initiated under Regulation                  suffered by him as a result of the fact that, following the
No 17 of the Council implementing Articles 85 and 86 of               expiry of his SLOM undertaking, he has been unable, by
the Treaty as regards the measures taken for the                      reason of the absence of a reference quantity, to resume
renovation of Orly airport by Aeroports de Paris, a                   milk production .
publicly-owned industrial and commercial institution
placed under the authority of the Minister for Civil
Aviation .
Lastly, the applicant considers that the communication is
vitiated by manifest errors of assessment and that it                 Action brought on 6 March 1997 by G. J. Meijer against
infringes Article 92 ( 3 ) (c ) of the EC Treaty, since it holds      the Council of the European Union and the Commission
that the failures established with regard to fulfilment of                              of the European Communities
condition No 16 are minor and do not undermine the
                                                                                ( Case T-51 /97 )
compatibility of the aid with the common market, and
that the undertakings given by the French authorities are                                         ( 97/C 142/50 )
enough to remedy the distortions of competition caused by
the non-observance of that condition .
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                      An action against the Council of the European Union and
                                                                      the Commission of the European Communities was
                                                                      brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                      Communities on 6 March 1997 by G. J. Meijer, of
Action brought on 6 March 1997 by H. Buwalda against                  Usquert (Netherlands ), represented by E. H. Pijnacker
the Council of the European Union and the Commission                  Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar, and M. T. P. J. van Oers,
               of the European Communities                            of The Hague Bar, with an address for service in
                        ( Case T-50/97 )                              Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Frieden, 62 Avenue
                                                                      Guillaume .
                          ( 97/C 142/49 )
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
               (Language of the case: Dutch)
An action against the Council of the European Union and               ( a ) primarily: order the Community to pay to the
the Commission of the European Communities was                              applicant the sum of Fl 139 382, together with interest
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European                  thereon at the rate of 8 % per annum from 19 May
Communities on 6 March 1997 by H. Buwalda , of                              1992 until the date of payment in full;
Franeker (Netherlands ), represented by E. H. Pijnacker
Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar, and M. T. P. J. van Oers,                  . in the alternative: order the Community to pay the
of The Hague Bar, with an address for service in                            applicant such sum as the Court in its wisdom shall
Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Frieden, 62 Avenue                         think fit, amounting to not less than Fl 58 022
Guillaume .                                                                 ( namely, the amount resulting from the application of


title: Case T-53/12: Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2012 — CF Sharp Shipping Agencies v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Actions for annulment — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based)

text:
               8.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 379/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2012 — CF Sharp Shipping Agencies v Council
   (Case T-53/12) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Actions for annulment - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based)
   2012/C 379/40
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: CF Sharp Shipping Agencies Pte Ltd (Singapore, Singapore) (represented by: S. Drury, Solicitor, K. Adamantopoulos and J. Cornelis, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1), of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11), and of Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1), in so far as they concern the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation No 961/2010 in so far as they concern the inclusion of CF Sharp Shipping Agencies Pte Ltd on the list in Annex VIII to Regulation No 961/2010.

               2.

               Annuls Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010 in so far as it concerns the inclusion of CF Sharp Shipping Agencies on the list in Annex IX thereto.

               3.

               Holds that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application by CF Sharp Shipping Agencies seeking annulment of Regulation No 961/2010 and Implementing Regulation No 1245/2011 with immediate effect.

               4.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder.

               5.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.


title: Case T-884/16: Action brought on 15 December 2016 — Multiconnect v Commission

text:
               6.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/53

         Action brought on 15 December 2016 — Multiconnect v Commission
   (Case T-884/16)
   (2017/C 038/69)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Multiconnect GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: J.-M. Schultze, S. Pautke and C. Ehlenz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the measures of the Commission through the merger control unit of the Directorate General for competition in the course of the implementation of the third requirement (‘non-MNO remedy’) of Decision M.7018, in particular its view expressed in the emails of 11 October 2016 and of 29 October 2016 that the non-MNO remedy is limited to pure service providers, excluding MVNOs (mobile virtual network operators) such as the applicant;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Decision C(2014) 4443 final in Case M.7018;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea: infringement of the Treaties or of any rule of law relating to [their] implementation
               The applicant claims that the defendant erred in law in its interpretation and application of Decision C(2014) 4443 final in Case M.7018 together with commitments, inasmuch as it limited, in the case, the so-called ‘non-MNO remedy’ to which Telefónica had committed itself to grant third parties access to 4G services in the wholesale mobile communications market, to third parties with a service provider business model and did not allow Telefónica to grant third parties access to 4G services within the framework of an MVNO business model in accordance with the ‘non-MNO remedy’.

               2.

               Second plea, put forward in the alternative: infringement of the Treaties or of any rule of law relating to [their] implementation, as well as manifest errors of assessment and failure to state reasons, inasmuch as Decision C(2014) 4443 final wrongly concluded that the commitments made by Telefónica could remove any competition concerns.