title: Case C-401/10 P: Appeal brought on 5 August 2010 by the European Commission against the judgment delivered on 21 May 2010 by the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) in Joined Cases T-425/04, T-444/04, T-450/04 and T-456/04 France and Others v Commission

text:
               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/15

         Appeal brought on 5 August 2010 by the European Commission against the judgment delivered on 21 May 2010 by the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) in Joined Cases T-425/04, T-444/04, T-450/04 and T-456/04 France and Others v Commission
   (Case C-401/10 P)
   ()
   2010/C 317/28
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito and D. Grespan and S. Thomas, Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: French Republic, France Télécom SA, Bouygues SA, Bouygues Télécom SA, Association française des opérateurs de réseaux et services de télécommunications (AFORS Télécom)

      Form of order sought

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) of 21 May 2010 in Joined Cases T-425/04, T-444/04, T-450/04 and T-456/04, notified by fax to the Commission on 25 May 2010, in so far as it:

                           —

                           annulled Article 1 of Commission Decision 2006/621/EC of 2 August 2004 on the State Aid implemented by France for France Télécom; (1)

                           —

                           ordered the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the French Republic and by France Télécom in Cases T-425/04 and T-444/04;

               —

               refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration;

               —

               reserve costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission puts forward three grounds in support of its appeal.
   By its first ground, the Commission argues that the General Court’s judgment contains contradictory reasoning on a number of points. This is the case, inter alia, when the General Court considers in the judgment under appeal that the declarations, including the announcement of a shareholder loan on 4 December 2002, may be considered together in the determination of whether France Télécom enjoyed an advantage, whereas it considers that, for the purpose of determining the commitment of State resources, there was a significant lapse of time between the announcement of the shareholder loan and the various State declarations made earlier.
   By its second ground, which comprises four parts, the Commission argues that the General Court disregarded Article 87(1) EC, read in conjunction with Article 230 EC, on a number of points. The General Court misapplied the concept of aid in requiring that there be a close nexus between the advantage and the commitment of State resources (first part), in refusing to recognise the commitment of State resources in the announcement and offer of a shareholder contract by the French State to France Télécom (second part) and in failing to apply the criterion of prudent private investor in order to determine whether or not France Télécom enjoyed an advantage (third part). The General Court, moreover, disregarded the discretion the Commission has when it carries out complex economic analyses and conducted a review of the appropriateness of the contested decision (fourth part).
   By its third ground, the Commission argues that the General Court distorted the contested decision in holding that it should have contained a more detailed statement of reasons as to why there was a distinct advantage resulting from the offer of a line of credit of EUR 9 billion to France Télécom and by holding that there was a significant lapse of time between the declarations beginning in July 2002 and the announcement of a shareholder loan contract on 4 December 2002.

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 257, p. 11.


title: Cases T-311/06 RI, T-311/06 RII, T-312/06 R and T-313/06 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 1 March 2007 — FMC Chemical and Others v EFSA (Application for interim measures — Application for suspension of operation — Directive 91/414/EEC — European Food Safety Authority — Inadmissibility)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/42

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 1 March 2007 — FMC Chemical and Others v EFSA
   (Cases T-311/06 RI, T-311/06 RII, T-312/06 R and T-313/06 R)
   (Application for interim measures - Application for suspension of operation - Directive 91/414/EEC - European Food Safety Authority - Inadmissibility)
   (2007/C 95/86)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: FMC Chemical SPRL (Brussels, Belgium), Arysta Lifesciences SAS (Noguères, France) and Otsuka Chemical Co. Ltd (Osaka, Japan) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (represented by: A. Cuvillier and D. Detken, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Doherty, Agent)
   Re:
   Applications for suspension of operation of the measures of the EFSA of 28 July and 28 August 2006 regarding the evaluation of the active substances carbofuran, carbosulfan and benfuracarb in accordance with Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1), and for other interim measures.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               Cases T-311/06 RI, T-311/06 RII, T-312/06 R and T-313/06 R are joined for the purpose of this order.

               2.

               The applications for interim relief are dismissed.

               3.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case C-341/10: Action brought on 7 July 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

text:
               25.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/6

         Action brought on 7 July 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-341/10)
   ()
   2010/C 260/08
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Enegren and Ł. Habiak, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by reason of the defective and incomplete implementation of Article 3(1)(d) to (h) and Article 9 of Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin, (1) the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16 of that directive;

               —

               order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The material scope of Directive 2000/43/EC covers a range of areas which are mentioned in Article 3(1) thereof. Under Article 16 of the directive, Member States are under an obligation to adopt the provisions necessary to ensure implementation of the directive in all of those areas (or to ensure that those provisions are adopted by management and labour) and to inform the European Commission accordingly. It is the Commission’s view that the Republic of Poland has to date complied with that obligation only in part. In the present action the Commission alleges that Poland has carried out a defective and incomplete implementation of the directive with regard to the following matters: membership of and/or involvement in an organisation of workers or employers, or any organisation the members of which carry on a particular profession, including the benefits provided for by such organisations, social protection, including social security and health care, social advantages, education, access to and supply of goods and services which are available to the public, including housing (Article 3(1)(d) to (h) of the directive). The Commission rejects the assertion of the Polish authorities that the implementation of the directive in these areas is ensured by provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, by legislation and by international agreements indicated in the course of the procedure prior to the bringing of the action.
   The European Commission also alleges that Poland transposed Article 9 of Directive 2000/43/EC into national law in a manner which is defective and incomplete. That provision, which refers to measures which are necessary to protect individuals from any adverse treatment or adverse consequence as a reaction to a complaint or to proceedings aimed at enforcing compliance with the principle of equal treatment, relates to all persons and to all situations coming within the scope of the directive. The provisions thus far communicated by the Polish authorities, however, indicate, in the Commission’s view, that measures of this kind exist only in respect of employees and the employment relationship.

      (1)  OJ 2000 L 180, p. 22.


title: Case T-203/06: Action brought on 1 August 2006 — Eurostrategies v Commission

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/51

         Action brought on 1 August 2006 — Eurostrategies v Commission
   (Case T-203/06)
   (2006/C 224/106)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Eurostrategies SPRL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Crosby, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of Commission Decision of 28 July 2006 refusing access to the listed documents below concerning the award procedure for project EuropeAid/113676/D/SV/PL, entitled ‘Phare-Technical assistance for JHA projects, 2003/S 159-145155 (PL0103.08)’, financed by the Country operational programme, PL0103-Justice and Home Affairs 2001:

                           —

                           ‘Evaluation Report’ of the Implementing Agency of 7 January 2004;

                           —

                           all the documents relating to the proposal of the Implementing Agency of 7 January 2004 to award the contract to Eurostrategies;

                           —

                           letter from the EC-Delegation in Warsaw to the Implementing Agency of 13 January 2004;

                           —

                           ‘Revised Evaluation Report’ of 15 January 2004;

                           —

                           internal file note of the EC-Delegation in Warsaw sent on 27 January 2004;

                           —

                           EC-Delegation letter to the Implementing Agency of 27 January 2004;

                           —

                           ‘Negotiation Report’ of 10 February 2004; and

                           —

                           letter of the EC-Delegation to the Implementing Agency of 12 February 2004;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, under Articles 230 and 231 EC, seeks annulment of the European Commission's Decision of 28 July 2006 rejecting his request for access to certain documents under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 on public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents. In support of its application, the applicant puts forward two pleas in law.
   First, the applicant suggests that by refusing disclosure of the requested documents without stating reasons for such refusal, the Commission has infringed Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.
   Secondly, the applicant submits that the contested decision infringes the duty to state reasons which is required by Article 235 EC and therefore, claims, it is invalid.


title: Case C-34/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove (Slovakia) lodged on 23 January 2013 — Monika Kušionová v SMART Capital, a.s.

text:
               18.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove (Slovakia) lodged on 23 January 2013 — Monika Kušionová v SMART Capital, a.s.
   (Case C-34/13)
   2013/C 141/14
   Language of the case: Slovak

      Referring court

   Krajský súd v Prešove

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Monika Kušionová

      Defendant: SMART Capital, a.s.

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts and Directive 2005/29/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’), in the light of Article 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as Paragraph 151j(1) of the Občiansky zákonník (Civil Code) in conjunction with other provisions of the legislation at issue in the present case, which enables a creditor to enforce the fulfilment of unfair contract terms by enforcing a lien against a consumer’s immovable property without an assessment of the contract terms by a court, despite there being a dispute regarding the issue as to whether a contract term is unfair?

               2.

               Does the European Union legislation set out in question 1 preclude the use of a national rule such as Paragraph 151j(1) of the Občiansky zákonník in conjunction with other provisions of the legislation at issue in the present case, which enables a creditor to enforce the fulfilment of unfair contract terms by enforcing a lien against a consumer’s immovable property without an assessment of the contract terms by a court, despite there being a dispute regarding the issue as to whether a contract term is unfair?

               3.

               Must the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 9 March 1978 in Case C-106/77 Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v Simmenthal
                   (3) be interpreted as precluding, in the interests of meeting the objective of the Directives set out in question 1 in the light of Article 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the national court from applying national provisions, such as Paragraph 151j(1) of the Občiansky zákonník in conjunction with other provisions of the legislation at issue in the present case, which enable a creditor to enforce the fulfilment of unfair contract terms by enforcing a lien against a consumer’s immovable property without an assessment of the contract terms by a court and also, despite there being a dispute, to circumvent the review by a court of its own motion of the contract terms?

               4.

               Is Article 4 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts to be interpreted as meaning that a contract term in a consumer contract, concluded by the consumer without representation by a lawyer, which enables a creditor to enforce a lien by out-of-court means and without review by a court, is a circumvention of the important principle of European Union law that contract terms are to be reviewed by courts of their own motion and for that reason is unfair, even in the situation where the wording of such a contract term is based on national legislation?

      (1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

      (2)  OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22.

      (3)  OJ 1978 p. 22.


title: Case C-93/02 P: Appeal brought on 16 March 2002 by Biret International SA against the judgment delivered on 11 January 2002 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-174/00 between Biret International SA and Council of the European Union, supported by the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 109/38               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       4.5.2002
The ‘Lotto Zero’ project is a project covered by Annex II to the         —     Infringement of Article 48 of the Rules of Procedure of
directive. The Commission takes the view that, by failing to                   the Court of First Instance: it is hardly possible to claim
ascertain whether that project required to be assessed for its                 that the matter of direct liability of the Community was
environmental effects in accordance with Articles 5 to 10 of                   totally absent from the application initiating proceedings
the directive, Italy has failed to fulfil its obligations under                and that it only appeared as a new plea in law in the
Article 4(2).                                                                  reply.
(1) OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40.
                                                                         Appeal brought on 16 March 2002 by Etablissements
Appeal brought on 16 March 2002 by Biret International                   Biret et Cie SA against the judgment delivered on 11 Janu-
SA against the judgment delivered on 11 January 2002 by                  ary 2002 by the First Chamber of the Court of First
the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                  Instance of the European Communities in Case T-210/00
European Communities in Case T-174/00 between Biret                      between Etablissements Biret et Cie SA and Council of
International SA and Council of the European Union,                      the European Union, supported by the Commission of
supported by the Commission of the European Communi-                                        the European Communities
                                ties
                                                                                (Case C-94/02 P)
                         (Case C-93/02 P)
                         (2002/C 109/64)                                                            (2002/C 109/65)
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 11 January 2002              An appeal against the judgment delivered on 11 January 2002
by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the               by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-174/00 between Biret                      European Communities in Case T-210/00 between Etablisse-
International and Council of the European Union, supported               ments Biret et Cie SA and Council of the European Union,
by Commission of the European Communities, was brought                   supported by Commission of the European Communities,
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on               was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
16 March 2002 by Biret International SA, represented by M. de            Communities on 16 March 2002 by Etablissements Biret et
Thoré and S. Rodrigues, with an address for service in                   Cie SA, represented by S. Rodrigues, with an address for
Luxembourg.                                                              service in Luxembourg.
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         The appellant claims that the Court should:
—     set aside the contested judgment delivered by the Court
      of First Instance of the European Communities on                   —     set aside the contested judgment delivered by the Court
      11 January 2002 in Case T-174/00;                                        of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                               11 January 2002 in Case T-210/00;
—     uphold the form of order sought by it at first instance;
      and                                                                —     uphold the form of order sought by it at first instance;
                                                                               and
—     order the defendant to pay the entire costs.
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay the entire costs.
Pleas and main arguments
—     Infringement of Article 300(7) EC: should the question as          Pleas and main arguments
      to whether the WTO Agreements have direct effect, quod
      non, be regarded by the Court of Justice as continuing to
      condition the liability of the Community for infringement
                                                                         The pleas and main arguments are similar to those put forward
      of those Agreements, contrary to the requirements and
                                                                         in Case C-93/02 P (1).
      scope of Article 300(7) EC, the appellant requests the
      Court of Justice, after having failed to persuade the Court
      of First Instance and relying on its role of maintaining the
                                                                         (1) See p. 38 of this Official Journal.
      unity of the interpretation of Community law, to develop
      its case-law and acknowledge that all or part of the WTO
      Agreements have direct effect.


title: Case C-24/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de Commerce de Marseille by order of 22 January 2002 in the case of Marseille Fret S.A. against Seatrano Shipping Company Limited

text:
C 97/2                  EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        20.4.2002
ruling concerning the application for registration in the                   Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de
Commercial Register made to that court by Holto Ltd. — on                   Commerce de Marseille by order of 22 January 2002 in
the interpretation of Articles 43 EC and 48 EC — the                        the case of Marseille Fret S.A. against Seatrano Shipping
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of                                             Company Limited
the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet
(Rapporteur) and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; S. Alber,
Advocate General; Registrar: R. Grass, has made an order on                                            (Case C-24/02)
22 January 2002 in which it has ordered:
The Court of Justice of the European Communities clearly lacks                                         (2002/C 97/04)
jurisdiction to answer the questions put by the Landesgericht Salzburg
in its order of 27 November 2000.
(1) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.                                                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                            European Communities by order of the Tribunal de Commerce
                                                                            de Marseille (Marseille Commercial Court) of 22 January 2002,
                                                                            received at the Court Registry on 31 January 2002, for a
                                                                            preliminary ruling in the case of Marseille Fret S.A. against
                                                                            Seatrano Shipping Company Limited on the following ques-
                                                                            tions:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour de                           1.    Does Title II of the Brussels Convention of 27 September
Cassation (Belgium) by judgement of 6 November 2001 in                            1968, as reproduced in Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of
the case of Office National de l’Emploi against Mohamed                           22 December 2000 (1), permit a court of a Member State
                                Alami                                             to restrain a citizen of another Contracting State from
                                                                                bringing proceedings before the courts of his home
                                                                                country, under either his national law or Community
                           (Case C-23/02)                                         law?
                           (2002/C 97/03)                                   2.    May an English court, by way of an anti-suit injunction,
                                                                                purport to restrain a person from having access to another
                                                                                Community court which nevertheless have jurisdiction
                                                                                under the Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968, as
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                            reproduced in Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 Decem-
European Communities by judgement of the Cour de Cassation                        ber 2000?
(National Employment Office) (Belgium) of 6 November 2001,
received at the Court Registry on 31 January 2002, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Office National de l’Emploi               3.    May an English court, by means of that procedure deprive
(National Employment Office) against Mohamed Alami on the                         other Community courts of the power to rule on matters
following question:                                                               falling within their own competence when that power
                                                                                appears to arise from the provisions of Chapter II of
                                                                                Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000?
Does the Cooperation Agreement between the European
Economic Community and the Kingdom of Morocco signed
in Rabat on 27 April 1976, concluded on behalf of the                       4.    Is an order compelling a Community national to with-
Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2211/78 of                               draw an independent action already commenced before a
26 September 1978 (1), preclude a Member State from taking                        French court, under threat of punitive sanctions such as
account only of work periods as an employee completed on                          those provided for by the English anti-suit injunction
its territory by workers of Moroccan nationality for the                          procedure, consistent with the fundamental principle of
purposes of determining whether they are entitled to benefit                      the right to access to a court, as protected by the Court
from a supplement for seniority increasing the basic amount                       of Justice of the European Communities?
of their unemployment benefit?
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2211/78 of 26 September 1978                (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on
    concerning the conclusion of the Cooperation Agreement between              jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in
    the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Morocco                  civil and commercial matters (OJ L 12, 16.1.2001, p. 1).
    (OJ L 264, 27.9.1978, p. 1).


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura Circondariale di Roma - Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli by order of that court of 24 January 1996 in criminal proceedings against Maria Paolantoni (Case C-34/96)

text:
30 . 3 . 96                  EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                          No C 95/9
      question 1(a ), and if so what would be the effect on the                  References for preliminary rulings by the Tribunal Superior
      answers to those questions ?                                               de Justicia of the Community of Extremadura by orders of
                                                                                that court of 17 January 1996 and 15 January 1996 in the
3 . ( a ) If the requests for further information and the other                  cases of Antonio Naranjo Arjona v. Instituto Nacional de la
            requirements described in question 1 above, or any                   Seguridad Social, Francisco Mateos v. Instituto Nacional de
            of them, are prima facie permissible under Council                   la Seguridad Social and Tesorería General de la Seguridad
            Directive 81 /851 /EEC and 81 /852/EEC, must such                    Social, and Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social v.
            requests and requirements comply with the                                                  Laura García Lázaro
            Community law principle of proportionality ?                                     ( Cases C-31/96, C-32/96 and C-33/96 )
      ( b ) If the answer to ( a ) is affirmative, are those                                                 ( 96/C 95/ 14 )
            principles to be applied in this case by the national
            court or by the Court of Justice ?                                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                                European Communities by orders of the Tribunal Superior
      (c )    ( i ) If they are to be applied by the Court of                    de Justicia ( High Court of Justice ) of the Community of
                      Justice, do the said requests and requirements
                                                                                Extremadura of 17 January 1996 ( Cases C-31 /96 and
                      or any of them infringe the principles of                  C-32/96 ) and of 15 January 1996 ( Case C-33/96 ), which
                      proportionality ?                                          were received at the Court Registry on 7 February 1996 , for
                                                                                preliminary rulings in the cases of Antonio Naranjo Arjona
            ( ii ) If they are to be applied by the national court,
                                                                                v. Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social ( National Social
                      by reference to what criteria and
                                                                                Security Institute ), Francisco Vicente Mateos v. Instituto
                      considerations must the proportionality of the
                                                                                Nacional de la Seguridad Social and Tesoreria General de la
                      requests and requirements be assessed ?
                                                                                Seguridad Social ( General Social Security Fund ), and
4 . Are Articles 30 to 36 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted                     Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social v. Laura Garcia
      as prohibiting requests and requirements such as those                     Lazaro on the following question :
      described above, or any of them ?
                                                                                when Article 47 ( 1 ) ( c ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 ( J )
5 . ( a ) Is Article 40 of Council Directive 81 /851 /EEC to be                  — now Article 47 ( 1 ) (g ) — uses the phrase ' shall determine
            interpreted as applying to the requests and                          that average by reference only to those periods of insurance
            requirements described above ?                                       completed under the legislation of the said State ', is it to be
                                                                                construed as referring to :
      ( b ) If so, in what circumstances and by reference to
            what criteria are the reasons for the imposition of
            such requests and requirements to be treated as                      1 . the theoretical maximum, minimum or average basis for
            inadequate for the purposes of Article 40 , and were                      the time being laid down by the legislation of a Member
            such requests and requirements adequately                                 State for payment of the relevant social security
            reasoned in the present case ?                                           contributions; or
6 . ( a ) Is a Member State liable as a matter of Community                      2 . the average of the actual bases of what was actually
            law to compensate an undertaking in damages for                          contributed by the person concerned, regardless of what
            loss which it has suffered as a consequence of the                        he would have had to contribute in the periods worked
            imposition of requests and requirements such as                           in Spain in accordance with the legislation of that
            those described above which :                                             State ?
                ( i ) are incompatible with the provisions of
                       Council    Directives   81 /851 /EEC           and/or     (') OJ English Special Edition 1971 ( II ), p. 416 .
                       81 /852/EEC ;
              ( ii ) infringe the principles of proportionality;
            ( iii ) are prohibited by Articles 30 to 36 of the EC
                       Treaty;
            ( iv ) are insufficiently reasoned within the meaning                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura
                       of Article 40 of Directive 81 /851 /EEC ?                 Circondariale di Roma — Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli by
                                                                                order of that court of 24 January 1996 in criminal
      ( b ) If the answer to question 6(a ) ( i ), ( ii ), ( iii ) and ( iv ) or               proceedings against Maria Paolantoni
            any of them is in the affirmative, under what                                                   Case C-34/96 )
            condition does such liability arise ?
                                                                                ( 96/C 95/ 15 )
t 1 ) OJ No L 317, 6 . 11 . 1981 , p. 1 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 317, 6 . 11 . 1981 , p . 16 .                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of
                                                                                the European Communities by order of the Pretura
                                                                                Circondariale di Roma — Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli
 ---pagebreak--- No C 95/ 10            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    30 . 3 . 96
( Rome District Magistrate's Court, Tivoli Division ) of             Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
24 January 1996, which was received at the Court Registry            Bundesverwaltungsgericht by order of that court of
on 9 February 1996, for a preliminary ruling in criminal             24 November 1995 in the administrative case of Faik
proceedings against Maria Paolantoni .                               Günaydin, Hatice Günaydin and the minor children Günes
                                                                           Günaydin and Seda Günaydin v. Freistaat Bayern
The questions referred by the Pretura Circondariale di                                        Case C-36/96 )
Roma — Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli to the Court of Justice
for a preliminary ruling are identical with those in Case                                     ( 96/C 95/ 17 )
C-58/95 ( M.
                                                                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                     European Communities by an order of the First Senate of the
(!) OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 , p . 6 .                            Bundesverwaltungsgericht ( Federal Administrative Court)
                                                                     of 24 November 1995 , which was received at the Court
                                                                     Registry on 12 February 1996, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                     in the administrative case of Faik Günaydin, Hatice
                                                                     Günaydin and the minor children Günes Günaydin and
                                                                     Seda Günaydin v. Freistaat Bayern, on the following
Action brought on 9 February 1996 by the Commission of               questions :
  the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                         ( Case C-35/96 )                            1 . is a Turkish worker within the meaning of Article 6(1 )
                           ( 96/C 95/16 )                                 of Decision No 1 /80 of the EEC-Turkey Association
                                                                          Council on the development of the Association
                                                                          ('Decision No 1 /80') duly registered as belonging to the
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before                 labour force of a Member State and is he legally
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                      employed there if he has been permitted to be employed
9 February 1996 by the Commission of the European                         by an employer in the Member State only temporarily
Communities, represented by Enrico Traversa , of its Legal                and only for the purpose of preparing for work with a
Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in                  subsidiary company of his employer in Turkey ?
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of its
Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                 If the answer to Question 1 is yes:
                                                                     2 . can a claim under Article 6 ( 1 ) of Decision No 1/80 be
The applicant claims that the Court should :                              opposed as an abuse of law if the Turkish worker has
                                                                         expressly declared his intention of returning to Turkey
1 . declare that by adopting and maintaining in force a law              after preparation for the work there and the authority
     which, in granting the relative decision-making power,               dealing with foreigners has permitted him to reside
     requires the Consiglio Nazionale degli Spedizionieri                 in the country temporarily only in view of that
     Doganali ( CNSD ) to adopt a decision by an association             declaration ?
     of undertakings contrary to Article 85 of the Treaty
     establishing the European Community in that it fixes a
     compulsory tariff for all customs agents, the Italian
     Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
     Articles 5 and 85 of the Treaty;                                References for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal
                                                                     d'Instance, Paris VII, by judgments of that court of
2 . order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .                    30 January 1996 in the cases of the companies Sodiprem,
                                                                     Sodiac and Sovim ( C-37/96 ) and Roger Albert SA
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      ( C-38/96 ) against Direction Generale des Douanes
                                                                                ( Cases C-37/96 and C-38/96 )
By Decision 93/438/EEC ( l ) of 30 June 1993 , the                                            ( 96/C 95/18 )
Commission found that the tariff adopted by the CNSD at
its meeting on 21 March 1988 constitutes an infringement             Two references have been made to the Court ofJustice of the
of Article 85 ( 1 ) of the Treaty .                                  European Communities by judgments of the Tribunal
The Commission also found that the direct basis for the
                                                                     d'Instance ( District Court), Paris VII, of 30 January 1996 ,
                                                                     which were received at the Court Registry on 12 February
CNSD decision of 21 March 1988 , which hinders
                                                                     1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the cases of the companies
competition in that it fixes a compulsory tariff for all             Sodiprem, Sodiac and Sovim ( C-37/96 ) and Roger Albert SA
customs agents, is Italian Law No 1612/1960 which                    ( C-38/96 ) against the Direction Generate des Douanes on
provides for the adoption by the CNSD of a decision by an            the following question:
association of undertakings prohibited by Article 85 ( 1 ) of
the Treaty. The Commission has therefore concluded that              do the rules laid down by Law 92-676 of 17 July 1992
Law No 1612/1969 constitutes an infringement of Article 5            concerning dock dues and implementing Decision 89/688 of
of the Treaty in relation to Article 85 .                            the Council of the European Communities of 22 December
                                                                     1 989 ( 1 ) have the effect of replacing a charge having
(') OJ No L 203 , 30 . 6 . 1993 , p . 27.                            equivalent effect to a customs duty on imports, as
                                                                     considered in the preliminary ruling of 16 July 1992 in
                                                                     Legros, and of establishing — by contrast with the dock


title: Case T-269/11: Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2014  — Xeda International v Commission (Plant protection products — Active substance ethoxyquin — Non-inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC — Withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance — Regulation (EC) No 2229/2004 — Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 — Accelerated assessment procedure — Manifest error of assessment — Rights of the defence — Proportionality — Legitimate expectations)

text:
               9.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/42

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2014 — Xeda International v Commission
   (Case T-269/11) (1)

   ((Plant protection products - Active substance ethoxyquin - Non-inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC - Withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance - Regulation (EC) No 2229/2004 - Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 - Accelerated assessment procedure - Manifest error of assessment - Rights of the defence - Proportionality - Legitimate expectations))
   (2015/C 046/51)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Xeda International SA (Saint-Andiol, France) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi, G. von Rintelen and P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of Commission Decision 2011/143/EU of 3 March 2011 concerning the non-inclusion of ethoxyquin in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and amending Commission Decision 2008/941/EC (OJ 2011 L 59, p. 71).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders Xeda International SA to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for interim relief.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 16.7.2011.


title: Case T-364/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 April 2008 — Greece v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — Expenditure excluded from Community financing — Products processed from fruit and vegetables — Animal premiums — Period of 24 months)

text:
               24.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 128/31

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 April 2008 — Greece v Commission
   (Case T-364/04) (1)

   (EAGGF - Guarantee Section - Expenditure excluded from Community financing - Products processed from fruit and vegetables - Animal premiums - Period of 24 months)
   (2008/C 128/67)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I. Chalkias and E. Svolopoulou, Agents)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Condou-Durande and L. Visaggio, initially, and M. Condou-Durande and H. Tserepa-Lacombe, Agents, and N. Korogiannakis, lawyer, subsequently)
   Re:
   Annulment of Commission Decision 2004/561/EC of 16 July 2004 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2004 L 250, p. 21) inasmuch as it excludes certain expenditure by the Hellenic Republic in the sectors of products processed from fruit and vegetables and animal premiums.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 314, 18.12.2004.


title: Case T-290/11: Action brought on 7 June 2011 — Deutsche Bahn and Others v Commission

text:
               13.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 238/22

         Action brought on 7 June 2011 — Deutsche Bahn and Others v Commission
   (Case T-290/11)
   2011/C 238/41
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Deutsche Bahn AG (Berlin, Germany), DB Mobility Logistics AG (DB ML AG) (Berlin, Germany), DB Netz AG (Frankfurt am Main, Germany), Deutsche Umschlaggesellschaft Schiene-Strasse mbH (DUSS) (Bodenheim, Germany) DB Schenker Rail GmbH (Mainz, Germany), DB Schenker Rail Deutschland AG (Mainz, Germany) (represented by: W. Deselaers, J.S. Brückner and O. Mross, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Forms of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission’s inspection decision of 30 March 2011 notified on 31 March 2011;

               —

               annul all measures taken on the basis of the inspections, which took place on the basis of that unlawful decision;

               —

               in particular order the Commission to return all the copies of documents made during the inspections, on pain of the annulment of the future Commission decision by the General Court, and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicants seek the annulment of Commission Decision C(2011) 2365 of 30 March 2011 (Cases COMP/39.678 and COMP/39.731), ordering, in accordance with Article 20(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1), inspections of Deutsche Bahn AG and all legal persons directly or indirectly controlled by the latter by reason of a potentially anti-competitive model of a strategic use of the infrastructure administered by companies of the DB group and of the provision of rail-linked services.
   In support of their action, the applicants make five pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea: infringement of the fundamental right to inviolability of one’s premises by reason of lack of prior judicial authorisation.

               2.

               Second plea: infringement of the fundamental right to an effective legal remedy by reason of the lack of possibility of prior judicial review of the inspection decision, both from the factual and the legal point of view.

               3.

               Third plea: Unlawfulness of the inspection decision, as it is based on information obtained by the Commission in the course of implementing the inspection decision on the system of rebates for electric traction energy, in the context of a very broad inquiry (‘fishing expedition’), and thus in breach of the applicants’ defence rights.

               4.

               Fourth plea: infringement of defence rights by reason of a disproportionately wide and non-specific subject-matter of the inspection.

               5.

               Fifth plea: infringement of the proportionality principle, as the Commission does not have jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the inspection and could in any event have obtained the relevant information through the competent Bundesnetzagentur [federal network agency] or by means of a simple request for information from the applicants.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 April 2005 in Case C-104/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam St. Paul Dairy Industries NV v Unibel Exser BVBA (Brussels Convention — Provisional, including protective, measures — Hearing of witnesses)

text:
               9.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/2

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 28 April 2005
   in Case C-104/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam St. Paul Dairy Industries NV v Unibel Exser BVBA (1)

   (Brussels Convention - Provisional, including protective, measures - Hearing of witnesses)
   (2005/C 171/03)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case C-104/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling pursuant to the Protocol of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam (Netherlands), made by decision of 12 December 2002, received at the Court on 6 March 2003, in the proceedings between St. Paul Dairy Industries NV and Unibel Exser BVBA — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, N. Colneric, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, M. Ilešič and E. Levits, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General, M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 28 April 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:
   Article 24 of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, of Ireland and of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic, by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic and by the Convention of 29 November 1996 on the Accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, must be interpreted as meaning that a measure ordering the hearing of a witness for the purpose of enabling the applicant to decide whether to bring a case, determine whether it would be well founded and assess the relevance of evidence which might be adduced in that regard is not covered by the notion of ‘provisional, including protective, measures’.

      (1)  JO C 101, 26.04.2003.


title: Case T-262/16: Action brought on 23 May 2016 — Globo Media v EUIPO — Globo Comunicação e Participações (GLOBO MEDIA)

text:
               18.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/46

         Action brought on 23 May 2016 — Globo Media v EUIPO — Globo Comunicação e Participações (GLOBO MEDIA)
   (Case T-262/16)
   (2016/C 260/57)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Globo Media, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: L. Estropá Navarro y J. Calderón Chavero, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Globo Comunicação e Participações S/A (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘GLOBO MEDIA’ — Application for registration No 8 957 169

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14/03/2016 in Case R 561/2014-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               As a consequence of the above, reject opposition No B1697179 and grant registration of the contested mark as regards the services requested in classes 35, 38 and 41;

               —

               Order EUIPO and the other interveners to pay the costs of these proceedings if they oppose them and reject their claims.

      Pleas in law

               —

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


title: Case C-68/00: Action brought on 29 February 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland

text:
13.5.2000             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 135/5
 Must there be a reduction in the amount of aid under the                The Commission therefore submits that the Italian Republic
second sentence of Article 10(2) even where the discrepancy              has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11 of Directive
laid down as a prerequisite in the first sentence thereof between        75/442/EEC, as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC, and under
the number of animals declared and that found during checks              Article 3 of Directive 91/689/EEC.
is attributable not to incorrect information given by the aid
applicant but to the fact that in regard to individual animals
the authority does not accept that the criteria for the grant of         (1) OJ L 377 of 31.12.1991, p. 20.
                                                                         (2) OJ L 194 of 25.7.1975, p. 39.
premiums are met?
                                                                         (3) OJ L 78 of 26.3.1991, p. 32.
(1) OJ L 391 of 31.12.1992, p. 36.
(2) OJ L 156 of 7.7.1995, p. 27.
                                                                         Action brought on 29 February 2000 by the Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities against Ireland
Action brought on 25 February 2000 by the Commission                                                (Case C-68/00)
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                                (2000/C 135/09)
                         (Case C-65/00)
                                                                         An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
                        (2000/C 135/08)                                  Justice of the European Communities on 29 February 2000 by
                                                                         the Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                         by Mr Michael Shotter, a member of its Legal Service, acting as
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the            agent, with an address for service at the office of Mr Carlos
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 25 February              Gómez de la Cruz, a member of its Legal Service, at the
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,                      Wagner Centre, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.
represented by Lena Ström of its Legal Service, and Giacinto
Bisogni, an appeal court judge on secondment to that service,
                                                                         The Applicant claims that the Court should:
acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,
                                                                         — declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
Kirchberg.
                                                                              or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                              Directive 97/60/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   the Council of 27 October 1997 amending for the third
                                                                              time Directive 88/344/EEC (2) on the approximation of the
— Declare that, by exempting undertakings and establish-                      laws of the Member States on extraction solvents used in
    ments which carry out hazardous waste recovery oper-                      the production of foodstuffs and food ingredients or, in
    ations covered by Directive 91/689/EEC (1) from the need                  any event, by failing to inform the Commission of those
    for authorisation provided for by Article 10 of Directive                 measures, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under
    75/442/EEC, as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC, with-                     that Directive; and,
    out making such exemption conditional upon satisfaction
    of the requirements laid down by Article 3(2), first                 — order Ireland to pay the costs.
    and second indents, of Directive 91/689/EEC, the Italian
    Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11
    of Directive 75/442/EEC (2), as amended by Directive                 Pleas in law and main arguments
    91/156/EEC (3), and under Article 3 of Directive
    91/689/EEC;                                                          Article 249 EC (ex Article 189 of the EC Treaty) under which
                                                                         a directive shall be binding as to the result to be achieved,
— Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the proceed-            upon each Member State, carries by implication an obligation
    ings.                                                                on the Member States to observe the period for compliance
                                                                         laid down in the directive. That period expired on 27 October
                                                                         1998 without Ireland having enacted the provisions necessary
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          to comply with the directive referred to in the conclusions of
                                                                         the Commission.
The simplified procedures for establishments or undertakings
which recover the hazardous waste covered by Directive
                                                                         (1) OJ L 331 of 3.12.1997, p. 7.
91/689/EEC remain subject solely to the requirements laid                (2) Council Directive 88/344/EC of 13 June 1988, OJ L 157 of
down by the Ministerial Decrees of 5 September 1994 and 16                   24.6.1988, p. 28.
January 1995, which do not stipulate the requirements
provided for by Article 3(2), first and second indents, of
Directive 91/689/EEC.


title: Case T-77/99: Action brought on 2 April 1999 by Girish Ojha against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
19.6.1999             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 174/11
Finally, the applicant pleads infringement of fundamental                The applicant was subsequently refused registration of his
Community rights, alternatively of rights equivalent thereto, in         vehicle. He learned thereafter that the chassis number of his
the form of a disproportionate impairment, contrary to the               vehicle had been blocked by the customs service by reason of
principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, of the           the fact that the Commission had not supplied the Belgian
commercial enterprise set up and operated by the applicant,              Customs and Excise Administration with relevant and necess-
viewed as a property right. According to the applicant, there            ary information that had been requested a number of times.
has been an infringement of the guaranteed right to have
access to legal remedies (see Article 19(4) of the German Basic          The applicant maintains that the Commission is liable to him
Law), which is enshrined in the German constitution but which            for the following failures in its administrative system:
also falls to be observed in the context of Community law.
                                                                         — The Commission did not ensure that the applicant’s
                                                                              individual file contained all the important and relevant
(1) OJ L 208 of 24.7.1992, p. 1.                                              documents which it should have contained in order to
                                                                              enable it to give the Belgian authorities correct and
                                                                              complete information;
                                                                         — the Commission did not correctly defend the applicant’s
                                                                              interests before the Belgian authorities, in that they insisted
                                                                              on 1 November 1992 as the date on which he assumed
                                                                              his duties, whereas his individual file contained two
                                                                              documents showing that it was 5 January 1993;
Action brought on 2 April 1999 by Girish Ojha against
       the Commission of the European Communities                        — the Commission did not appear to know the terms of the
                                                                              agreements concluded with the Belgian Ministry of Finance
                                                                              and did not make the effort to become acquainted with
                         (Case T-77/99)                                       them.
                        (1999/C 174/22)                                  The material damage comprises the cost of hiring a vehicle
                                                                         identical to the applicant’s, at the rate of BFR 2 200 per day
                                                                         for the period from 1 February 1996 until 31 December 1997.
                                                                         The applicant considers that the non-material damage may
                   (Language of the case: French)                        fairly be assessed at BFR 300 000, since he suffered significant
                                                                         non-material damage through the errors and omissions of the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                Commission’s staff.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 2 April 1999 by Girish Ojha,
residing at Bierbeek (Belgium), represented by Antonietta
Ottati and Marc Dallemagne, both of the Brussels Bar.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Action brought on 1 April 1999 by Sonia Marion Elder
                                                                         and Robert Dale Elder against the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
— annul the express decision of the Commission rejecting
    the applicant’s complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff                                     (Case T-78/99)
    Regulations;
                                                                                (1999/C 174/23)
— order the Commission to pay the applicant damages of
    BFR 1 552 339 for material damage and BFR 300 000 for
    non-material damage;                                                                    (Language of the case: English)
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 1 April 1999 by Sonia Marion
                                                                         Elder and Robert Dale Elder, represented by Scott Crosby of
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Kemmier Rapp Böhlke & Crosby, 9, Rond-Point, Brussels.
The applicant was posted to the Commission delegation in                 The applicant claims that the Court should.
Dacca (Bangladesh) until 31 December 1992. He imported a
Mercedes motor car, purchased free of VAT on 17 December                 (i) annul the refusal of the Commission to grant the appli-
1991, to Bangladesh from Belgium. On 5 January 1993, he                       cation for review of 6 January 1999 addressed to the
resumed his duties with the Commission in Brussels.                           Secretary General of the Commission constituted by its
                                                                              failure to reply in any form by the last hour of 8 February
                                                                              1999, or in the alternative by its failure to define its
According to the applicant, the relevant department of the                    position before the last hour of 13 or 14 February 1999;
Commission stated on tax forms on 23 December 1992 and
15 January 1993 that the applicant satisfied the conditions for          (ii) order the defendant to pay the applicants’ costs pursuant
customs exemption, erroneously indicating 1 November 1992                     to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First
as the date on which he assumed his duties.                                   Instance.


title: Case T-416/14: Action brought on 12 June 2014  — Grup Maritim TCB v Commission

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/55

         Action brought on 12 June 2014 — Grup Maritim TCB v Commission
   (Case T-416/14)
   2014/C 253/72
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Grup Maritim TCB, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: A. López Gómez, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               in the alternative, annul the decision categorising the measures which together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ (‘STLS’) as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as the only beneficiaries of the alleged aid and, consequently, as solely liable for its recovery;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid in breach of general principles of EU law;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of private contracts between the investors and other entities, in full or in such a way as to limit the bar on passing on the burden of recovery to the profitability of the operations; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-401/14 Duro Felguera SA v Commission.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 13 July 2004 in Case T-29/03 Communidad Autonóma de Andalucía v Commission of the European Communities (European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) — Report relating to the administrative enquiry into the marketing of olive oil in Andalusia (Spain) — Complaint — Inadmissibility)

text:
               22.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/23

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 13 July 2004
   in Case T-29/03 Communidad Autonóma de Andalucía v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) - Report relating to the administrative enquiry into the marketing of olive oil in Andalusia (Spain) - Complaint - Inadmissibility)
   (2005/C 19/51)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   In Case T-29/03, Communidad Autónoma de Andalucía, represented by C. Carretero Espinosa de los Monteros, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: C. Ladenburger and S. Pardo Quintillán, with an address for service in Luxembourg) – application for annulment of the decision allegedly contained in the letter of the Director General of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) of 8 November 2002, by which the latter informed the applicant of the impossibility of investigating its complaint against OLAF Report IO/2000/7057 relating to administrative enquiries into the marketing of olive oil in Andalusia (Spain) – the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, P. Mengozzi and M.E. Martins Ribiero, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 13 July 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               (1)

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

               (2)

               The applicant shall bear its own costs and pay those of the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 70 of 22.3.2003.


20150731039616972015/C 270/335732014TC27020150817EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20150601262722Case T-573/14: Order of the General Court of 1 June 2015 — Polyelectrolyte Producers Group and SNF v Commission (Actions for annulment — Environment — Criteria for the award of the EU Ecolabel — Converted paper products — Excluded or limited substances and mixtures — Concentration limits for residual monomers — Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility)
 ---documentbreak--- C2702015EN2620120150601EN0033262272Order of the General Court of 1 June 2015 — Polyelectrolyte Producers Group and SNF v Commission
   (Case T-573/14) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Actions for annulment — Environment — Criteria for the award of the EU Ecolabel — Converted paper products — Excluded or limited substances and mixtures — Concentration limits for residual monomers — Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility)’2015/C 270/33Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicants: Polyelectrolyte Producers Group (Brussels, Belgium); and SNF SAS (Andrézieux-Bouthéon, France) (represented by: R. Cana and A. Patsa, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Mifsud-Bonnici and G. Zavvos, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2014/256/EU of 2 May 2014 establishing the ecological criteria for the award of the EU Ecolabel for converted paper products (OJ 2014 L 135, p. 24).

      Operative part of the order

            1)

            The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

            2)

            Polyelectrolyte Producers Group and SNF SAS shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 409, 17.11.2014.


title: Case T-419/12: Order of the General Court of 27 June 2014  — LVM v Commission

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/72

         Order of the General Court of 27 June 2014 — LVM v Commission
   (Case T-419/12) (1)

   2014/C 315/119
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 373, 1.12.2012.


title: Case C-259/11: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — DTZ Zadelhoff vof v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Sixth VAT Directive — Articles 5(3)(c) and 13B(d)(5) — Negotiation of a transaction involving the transfer of company shares — Transaction which also entails the transfer of the ownership of immovable property held by such companies — Exemption)

text:
               22.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/14

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — DTZ Zadelhoff vof v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-259/11) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Articles 5(3)(c) and 13B(d)(5) - Negotiation of a transaction involving the transfer of company shares - Transaction which also entails the transfer of the ownership of immovable property held by such companies - Exemption)
   2012/C 287/23
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: DTZ Zadelhoff vof

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Articles 5(3)(c) and 13B(d)(5) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Exemptions laid down in the Sixth Directive — Transactions relating to the securities referred to in Article 13B(d)(5) — Transfer of shares of companies also entailing the transfer of the ownership of immovable property belonging to those companies.

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 13B(d)(5) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from value added tax in that provision covers transactions, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which are designed to transfer shares in the companies concerned and have that effect but which, in the final analysis, concern immovable property held by those companies and the (indirect) transfer of that property. The exception to the exemption provided for in the second indent of that provision is not applicable if the Member State has not availed itself of the possibility provided by Article 5(3)(c) of the Sixth Directive of considering shares or interests equivalent to shares giving the holder thereof de jure or de facto rights of ownership or possession over immovable property to be tangible property.

      (1)  OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.


title: Case C-670/13 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 June 2014  — The Cartoon Network, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Boomerang TV SA (Appeal — Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark BOOMERANG — Earlier Community figurative mark Boomerang TV  — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion)

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/31

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 June 2014 — The Cartoon Network, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Boomerang TV SA
   (Case C-670/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark BOOMERANG - Earlier Community figurative mark Boomerang TV - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion))
   2014/C 315/50
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: The Cartoon Network, Inc. (represented by: I. Starr, Solicitor)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Boomerang TV SA

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               The Cartoon Network Inc. is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 52, 22.2.2014.


title: Case T-273/12: Judgment of the General Court of 24 June 2014  — Unister v OHIM (Ab in den Urlaub) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark Ab in den Urlaub — Mark consisting of an advertising slogan — Absolute ground for refusal — Absence of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Absence of evidence of distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/25

         Judgment of the General Court of 24 June 2014 — Unister v OHIM (Ab in den Urlaub)
   (Case T-273/12) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark Ab in den Urlaub - Mark consisting of an advertising slogan - Absolute ground for refusal - Absence of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Absence of evidence of distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   2014/C 253/35
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Unister GmbH (Leipzig, Germany) (represented by: H. Hug and A. Kessler-Jensch, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka and R. Pethke, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 3 April 2012 (Case R 2150/2011-1), concerning an application for registration of the word mark Ab in den Urlaub as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders Unister GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.


title: Case T-146/13: Order of the General Court of 1 April 2014  — Zhejiang Sunflower Light Energy Science & Technology v Commission

text:
               10.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/52

         Order of the General Court of 1 April 2014 — Zhejiang Sunflower Light Energy Science & Technology v Commission
   (Case T-146/13) (1)

   2014/C 175/73
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 123, 27. 4. 2013.


title: Case C-434/07: Order of the President of the Court of 17 January 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

text:
               29.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/24

         Order of the President of the Court of 17 January 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-434/07) (1)

   (2008/C 79/46)

      Language of the case: Portuguese

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

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.


title: Case T-218/11: Order of the General Court of 17 February 2012 — Dagher v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted having regard to the situation in Côte d’Ivoire — Withdrawal from the list of persons concerned — Action for annulment — No need to adjudicate — Non-contractual liability)

text:
               21.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/25

         Order of the General Court of 17 February 2012 — Dagher v Council
   (Case T-218/11) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted having regard to the situation in Côte d’Ivoire - Withdrawal from the list of persons concerned - Action for annulment - No need to adjudicate - Non-contractual liability)
   2012/C 118/43
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Habib Roland Dagher (Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire) (represented by: J.-Y. Dupeux and F. Dressen, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and E. Dumitriu-Segnana, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the form of order sought by the defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bordes and M. Konstantinides, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Firstly, annulment of Council Decision 2011/71/CFSP of 31 January 2011, amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP of 29 October 2010 renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 28, p. 60) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 85/2011 of 31 January 2011, implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 of 12 April 2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d'Ivoire (OJ L 28, p. 32), in so far as the applicant's name has been placed on the list of persons and entities to which those restrictive measures apply and, secondly, a claim for damages

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no further need to adjudicate on the application for annulment of Council Decision 2011/71/CFSP of 31 January 2011, amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP of 29 October 2010 renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 85/2011 of 31 January 2011, implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 of 12 April 2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d'Ivoire.

               2.

               The claim for damages is dismissed.

               3.

               The Council of the European Union shall pay the costs relating to the application for annulment.

               4.

               The applicant shall pay the costs relating to the claim for damages.

               5.

               The European Commission shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 179, 18.6.2011.


title: Case T-50/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  25 October 2005  — Micha v Commission (Officials — Reporting procedure for 1999/2001 — Staff report — Action for annulment — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Delay in drawing up staff report)

text:
               24.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/21

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 October 2005 — Micha v Commission
   (Case T-50/04) (1)

   (Officials - Reporting procedure for 1999/2001 - Staff report - Action for annulment - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Delay in drawing up staff report)
   (2005/C 330/51)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Emmanuel Micha (Roeser, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and L. Lozano Palacios, Agents)
   Application for
   Annulment of the decision drawing up a definitive staff report for the applicant for the period from 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2001
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the application;

               2)

               Orders the Commission to pay its own costs in addition to two thirds of the costs incurred by the applicant.

      (1)  OJ C 94, 17.4.2004.


title: Case C-270/06: Action brought on 20 June 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria

text:
               2.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/17

         Action brought on 20 June 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-270/06)
   (2006/C 212/29)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Støvlbæk, Agent, B.Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Defendant: Republic of Austria
   Form of order sought

               1.

               Declare, under Article 226(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Communities, that by requiring certain credit institutions which are affiliated to a central institution to hold with their central institution (in accordance with conditions laid down by the central institution) liquidity reserves corresponding to a certain percentage of their deposit funds and preventing them from investing their liquid assets with other European financial institutions, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56(1) EC.

               2.

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Article 56(1) EC prohibits all national rules which restrict the movement of capital between Member States and between Member States and third countries. This prohibition goes beyond removing inequalities of treatment of participants in the financial markets on the basis of their nationality and includes generally every restriction which makes the exercise of that fundamental freedom less attractive. According to the case-law of the Court of Justice, measures taken by a Member State which are liable to dissuade its residents from raising loans or making investments in other Member States constitute restrictions on the movement of capital.
   The Commission is of the view that the provision of the Austrian federal banking law requiring certain credit institutions which are affiliated to a central institution to keep a part of their liquidity reserves with their central institution constitutes a restriction on the free movement of capital. That legal obligation prevents prevents primary banks from investing with other European credit institutions a significant part of their liquid assets, corresponding to the obligatory deposit, and from achieving, by way of a cross-border transfer to another Member State, higher rates of return than those provided by the central institution.
   The provision at issue of the Austrian federal banking law cannot be justified on the basis of the grounds explicitly mentioned in Article 58 EC, or on grounds of consumer protection or by other overriding reasons relating to the public interest.
   According to the Commission the obligatory deposit at issue laid down in the law is not necessary for the purpose of consumer protection. First statutory rules to safeguard liquidity, which apply to all banks, already exist in Austria, and secondly, there are less restrictive means for ensuring sufficient liquidity, which do not impede or impede less the free movement of capital. The existing rule is even counter-productive in terms of consumer protection, since it prevents primary banks from investing their liquidity reserve abroad and possibly more profitably, in the interest of their customers. Furthermore there is no evidence at all to indicate that the insolvency of individual primary banks would necessarily trigger a chain reaction and bring about a run on the savings deposits of other primary banks in the sector. This catastrophic scenario is not convincing, as comparable systems in other Member States manage without compulsory statutory deposits, and have operated stably for many decades without this having led to a series of collapses of banks.
   Since the present statutory obligation on the relevant credit institutions is equally unnecessary for the protection of the integrity and the good reputation of the Austrian financial sector and for the achievement of effective supervision of financial institutions, it constitutes a disproportionate restriction on the free movement of capital.


title: Opinion 2/13: Opinion of the Court (Full Court) of 18 December 2014  — European Commission (Opinion pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU — Draft international agreement — Accession of the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms — Compatibility of the draft agreement with the EU and FEU Treaties)

text:
               23.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/2

         Opinion of the Court (Full Court) of 18 December 2014 — European Commission
   (Opinion 2/13) (1)

   ((Opinion pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU - Draft international agreement - Accession of the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms - Compatibility of the draft agreement with the EU and FEU Treaties))
   (2015/C 065/02)
   Language of the procedure: all official languages

      Requested by

   European Commission (represented by: L. Romero Requena, H. Krämer, C. Ladenburger and B. Smulders, acting as Agents)

      Operative part

   The agreement on the accession of the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is not compatible with Article 6(2) TEU or with Protocol (No 8) relating to Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union on the accession of the Union to the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.


title: Case T-206/11: Order of the General Court of 28 September 2011 — Complex v OHIM — Kajometal (KX) (Community trade mark — Refusal of registration — Withdrawal of application for registration — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               26.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/33

         Order of the General Court of 28 September 2011 — Complex v OHIM — Kajometal (KX)
   (Case T-206/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Refusal of registration - Withdrawal of application for registration - No need to adjudicate)
   2011/C 347/56
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Complex S.A. (Łódź, Poland) (represented by: R. Rumpel, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Kajometal s.r.o. (Dolný Kubín, Slovakia)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 January 2011 (Case R 864/2010-2) in opposition proceedings between Complex S.A. and Kajometal s.r.o.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               Each party shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 194, 2.7.2011.


title: Case C-529/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 22 November 2012 — Andrea Lange v ERGO Lebensversicherung AG

text:
               9.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 22 November 2012 — Andrea Lange v ERGO Lebensversicherung AG
   (Case C-529/12)
   2013/C 38/13
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Hamburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Andrea Lange

      Defendant: ERGO Lebensversicherung AG

      Question referred

   Must the first indent of Article 15(1) of Council Directive 90/619/EEC of 8 November 1990 (1), having regard to Article 31(1) of Council Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 (2), be interpreted as precluding a provision — such as the fourth sentence of Paragraph 5a(2) of the Versicherungsvertragsgesetz (Law on insurance contracts) in the version of the Drittes Gesetz zur Durchführung versicherungsrechtlicher Richtlinien des Rates der Europäischen Gemeinschaften (Third Law implementing directives of the Council of the European Communities on insurance law) of 21 July 1994 — under which a right of cancellation lapses one year at the latest after payment of the first premium even if the policy-holder has not been informed about the right of cancellation?

      (1)  Council Directive 90/619/EEC of 8 November 1990 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance, laying down provisions to facilitate the effective exercise of freedom to provide services and amending Directive 79/267/EEC (OJ 1990 L 330, p. 50)

      (2)  Council Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance and amending Directives 79/267/EEC and 90/619/EEC (Third Life Assurance Directive) (OJ 1992 L 360, p. 1)