title: Case F-63/10: Action brought on 5 August 2010 — Lunetta v Commission

text:
               25.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/29

         Action brought on 5 August 2010 — Lunetta v Commission
   (Case F-63/10)
   ()
   2010/C 260/41
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Calogero Lunetta (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi and C. Christophe Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of the Commission terminating the procedure opened on the basis of Article 73 of the Staff Regulations following the applicant’s accident of 13 August 2001 and awarding him a partial permanent invalidity rate of 6 %, and an order requiring the defendant to pay to the applicant a sum in respect of damages

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that the present application is admissible;

               —

               if appropriate, request that the defendant produce the decision adopted by the President of the Court of Justice of the European Union to designate the third doctor of the Medical Committee;

               —

               if appropriate, request that the defendant produce a copy of the documents in the file opened under the number 10006353;

               —

               annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 28 October 2009 terminating the procedure opened on the basis of Article 73 of the Staff Regulations following the applicant’s accident of 13 August 2001 and awarding him a partial permanent invalidity rate of 6 % and, in so far as necessary, the decision of the Appointing Authority rejecting the complaint;

               —

               in consequence, find that the partial permanent invalidity rate should be assessed on the basis of the rules and of the assessment scale in force at the time of the accident and until 1 January 2006, and that the examination of the application made by the applicant under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations should be resumed by a Medical Committee formed in an impartial and neutral manner which is able to work rapidly in complete independence and without any preconceived views;

               —

               order the defendant to pay damages fixed ex aequo et bono at EUR 50 000 (fifty thousand euro) in respect of the non-material harm suffered as a result of the contested decisions;

               —

               order the defendant to pay damages fixed provisionally at EUR 25 000 (twenty-five thousand euro) in respect of the material damage suffered on account of the contested decisions;

               —

               order the defendant to pay interest for late payment on the lump sum payable under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations at a rate of 12 % over a period which began on 13 August 2002 at the latest and up until the complete payment of the lump sum;

               —

               in any event, order the defendant to pay damages fixed ex aequo et bono at EUR 50 000 (fifty thousand euro) in respect of the damage suffered as a result of infringement of the principle that action is to be taken within a reasonable period;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 January 2003 in Case C-76/00 P: Petrotub SA and Republica SA (Appeal — Protection against dumping — Determination of the dumping margin — Choice of the "asymmetrical" calculation method — Article 2.4.2 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the GATT — Statement of reasons — Determination of normal value — Taking into account of sales made using compensation — Statement of reasons)

text:
22.2.2003                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                                       C 44/3
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                             in the Member State of production, and by requiring that those
                                                                                products may only be marketed under the name ‘chocolate
                                                                                substitute’, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                           (Sixth Chamber)                                          under Article 30 of the Treaty (now, after amendment,
                                                                                Article 28 EC);
                         of 16 January 2003                                  2.     Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
in Case C-14/00: Commission of the European Communi-                         (1 ) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.
                      ties v Italian Republic (1)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Free
movement of goods — Directive 73/241/EEC — Cocoa and
chocolate products containing fats other than cocoa butter
— Products lawfully manufactured and marketed in the
Member State of production under the sales name ‘chocolate’
— Prohibition on marketing under that name in the Member
State of marketing— Requirement to use the name ‘chocolate                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                              substitute’)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                            (2003/C 44/04)
                                                                                of 9 January 2003
                     (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                in Case C-76/00 P: Petrotub SA and Republica SA (1)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                           (Appeal — Protection against dumping — Determination
                                                                             of the dumping margin — Choice of the ‘asymmetrical’
                                                                             calculation method — Article 2.4.2 of the Agreement on
                                                                             Implementation of Article VI of the GATT — Statement of
                                                                             reasons — Determination of normal value — Taking into
                                                                             account of sales made using compensation — Statement of
In Case C-14/00, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: G. Valero Jordana and G. Bisogni) v Italian Republic                                                  reasons)
(Agent: U. Leanza, assisted by O. Fiumara): Application for a
declaration that, by prohibiting chocolate products containing                                             (2003/C 44/05)
vegetable fats other than cocoa butter, and which are lawfully
manufactured in Member States which authorise the addition
of such fats, from being marketed in Italy under the name used                                     (Language of the case: English)
in the Member State of origin, and by requiring that those
products may only be marketed under the name ‘chocolate
substitute’, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
under Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
Article 28 EC), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:                      In Case C-76/00 P, Petrotub SA, established in Roman
J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen,                    (Romania), and Republica SA established in Bucharest (Roman-
V. Skouris (Rapporteur), N. Colneric and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues,               ia) (avocats: A. Merckx and P. Bentley): Two appeals against
Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,                     the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
Head of Division, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                 Communities (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) of
16 January 2003, in which it:                                                15 December 1999 in Joined Cases T-33/98 and T-34/98
                                                                             Petrotub and Republica v Council [1999] ECR II-3837, seeking
                                                                             to have that judgment set aside, the other parties to the
1.    Declares that, by prohibiting cocoa and chocolate products             proceedings being: Council of the European Union (Agent: S.
      which comply with the requirements as to minimum content               Marquardt, assisted by G. Berrisch), defendant at first instance,
      laid down in point 1.16 of Annex I to Council Directive 73/            and Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
      241/EEC of 24 July 1973 on the approximation of the laws               V. Kreuschitz and S. Meany) intervener at first instance, the
      of the Member States relating to cocoa and chocolate products          Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of
      intended for human consumption to which vegetable fats other           the Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, D.A.O. Edward, A. La
      than cocoa butter have been added, and which are lawfully              Pergola (Rapporteur) and P. Jann, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate
      manufactured in Member States which authorise the addition             General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a
      of such fats, from being marketed in Italy under the name used         judgment on 9 January 2003, in which it has ruled:
 ---pagebreak--- C 44/4                   EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                             22.2.2003
1.    Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the          L 67, p. 37), in so far as it concerns the Hellenic Republic, the
      European Communities of 15 December 1999 in Joined Cases               Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President
      T-33/98 and T-34/98 Petrotub and Republica v Council;                  of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann,
                                                                             F. Macken and N. Colneric, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General;
2.    Annuls Council Regulation (EC) No 2320/97 of 17 November               L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
      1997 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of             a judgment on 24 June 2000, in which it:
      certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or non-alloy steel
      originating in Hungary, Poland, Russia, the Czech Republic,
      Romania and the Slovak Republic, repealing Regulation (EEC)            1.    Dismisses the application;
      No 1189/93 and terminating the proceeding in respect of such
      imports originating in the Republic of Croatia in so far as it         2.    Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
      concerns Petrotub SA and Republica SA;
3.    Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs              (1 ) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
      incurred by Petrotub SA and Republica SA both in the present
      proceedings and in the proceedings at first instance which
      culminated in the judgment in Petrotub and Republica v
      Council, cited above;
4.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear
      its own costs both in the present proceedings and in the
      proceedings at first instance which culminated in the judgment
      in Petrotub and Republica v Council.                                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE
( 1) OJ C 135 of 15.5.2000.                                                                            (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 9 January 2003
                                                                             in Case C-177/00: Italian Republic v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities ( 1)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                             (EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1995 to 1998 financial
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                    years — Export refunds — Olive oil — Sale of intervention
                                                                                alcohol)
                          of 9 January 2003
                                                                                (2003/C 44/07)
in Case C-157/00: Hellenic Republic v Commission of the
                    European Communities ( 1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
(EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1996 to 1998 —
             Export refunds — Fruit and vegetables)                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                           (2003/C 44/06)
                     (Language of the case: Greek)                           In Case C-177/00: Italian Republic (Agent: U. Leanza, assisted
                                                                             by D. Del Gaizo) against Commission of the European
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       Communities (Agents: E. de March and L. Visaggio, assisted by
                    in the European Court Reports)                           A. Dal Ferro) — application for partial annulment of the
                                                                             Commission’s Decision 2000/216/EC of 1 March 2000 exclud-
                                                                             ing from Community financing certain expenditure incurred
                                                                             by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the
In Case C-157/00, Hellenic Republic (Agents: V. Kontolaimos                  European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF)
and I. K. Chalkias, also by C. Tsiavou) v Commission of                      (OJ 2000 L 67, p. 37) in so far as it made financial adjustments
the European Communities (Agent: M. Condou-Durande):                         to certain expenses declared by Italy — the Court of Justice
Application for partial annulment of Commission                              (Fifth Chamber), composed of M. Wathelet, President of
Decision 2000/216/EC of 1 March 2000 excluding from                          the Chamber, and D.A.O. Edward, A La Pergola, P. Jann
Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the                      (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate
Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European                    General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 9 January
Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2000                    2003, in which it:


title: Case C-464/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Tributário de Lisboa (Portugal) lodged on 8 October 2014  — SECIL — Companhia Geral de Cal e Cimento SA v Fazenda Pública

text:
               2.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 34/2

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Tributário de Lisboa (Portugal) lodged on 8 October 2014 — SECIL — Companhia Geral de Cal e Cimento SA v Fazenda Pública
   (Case C-464/14)
   (2015/C 034/02)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal Tributário de Lisboa

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: SECIL — Companhia Geral de Cal e Cimento SA

      Defendant: Fazenda Pública

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 31 of the Agreement with Tunisia (1) constitute a provision which is clear, precise and unconditional and, as such, directly applicable, and from which it must be inferred that the right of establishment is applicable to the present case?

               2.

               If so, does the right of establishment under that provision entail the consequences which the applicant claims, in the sense that, if that right is not to be infringed, it requires that the full deduction mechanism provided for in Article 46(1) of the CIRC [(Code on corporation tax)] be applied to the dividends which the applicant received from its subsidiary in Tunisia?

               3.

               Does Article 34 of the Agreement with Tunisia constitute a provision which is clear, precise and unconditional and, as such, directly applicable, and from which it must be inferred that the free movement of capital is applicable to the present case and must therefore be regarded as covering the investment made by the applicant?

               4.

               If so, does the free movement of capital under that provision have the implications which the applicant claims, inasmuch as it requires that the full deduction mechanism established in Article 46(1) of the CIRC be applied to the dividends which the applicant received from its subsidiary in Tunisia?

               5.

               Does it result from Article 89 of the Agreement with Tunisia that the foregoing questions must be answered in the affirmative?

               6.

               Is the restrictive treatment of the dividends distributed by Société des Ciments de Gabés justified, given that the framework for cooperation established in Council Directive 77/799/EEC (2) of 19 December 1977 concerning mutual assistance by the competent authorities of the Member States in the field of direct taxation does not exist in the case of Tunisia?

               7.

               Do the provisions of Article 31 and Article 33(2) of the Agreement with Lebanon constitute a rule which is clear, precise and unconditional and, as such, directly applicable, and from which it must be inferred that the free movement of capital is applicable to the present case?

               8.

               If so, does the free movement of capital under those provisions have the implications which the applicant claims, inasmuch as it requires that the full deduction mechanism established in Article 46(1) of the CIRC be applied to the dividends which the applicant received from its subsidiary in Lebanon?

               9.

               Does it result from Article 85 of the Agreement with Lebanon (3) that the foregoing questions must be answered in the affirmative?

               10.

               Is the restrictive treatment of the dividends distributed by Ciments de Sibline, S.A.L. justified, given that the framework for cooperation established in Council Directive 77/799/EEC of 19 December 1977 concerning mutual assistance by the competent authorities of the Member States in the field of direct taxation does not exist in the case of Lebanon?

               11.

               Are the provisions of Article 56 EC (now Article 63 TFEU) applicable to the present case and, if so, does the free movement of capital established in that provision have the effect of requiring the application to the dividends distributed in the 2009 financial year by Société des Ciments de Gabés, S.A. and Ciments de Sibline, S.A.L. to the applicant of the full deduction mechanism provided for in Article 46(1) of the CIRC or, in the alternative, of the partial deduction mechanism provided for in Article 48(8) of the CIRC?

               12.

               Even if the free movement of capital is considered to be applicable in the present case, may the non-application to the dividends in question of the mechanisms for the elimination or mitigation of economic double taxation provided for in the Portuguese legislation in force at that time be regarded as being justified by the fact that the framework for cooperation established in Council Directive 77/799/EEC of 19 December 1977 concerning mutual assistance by the competent authorities of the Member States in the field of direct taxation does not exist in the case of Tunisia and Lebanon?

               13.

               Does the ‘standstill’ clause contained in Article 57(1) EC (now Article 64 TFEU) preclude the application of the free movement of capital, together with the consequences claimed by the applicant?

               14.

               Must the ‘standstill’ clause contained in Article 57(1) EC (now Article 64 TFEU) not be applied on account of the introduction in the meantime of the scheme of tax benefits for contractual investments established in Article 41(5)(b) of the EBF [(Tax advantages scheme)] and the scheme provided for in Article 42 of the EBF for dividends from the PALOP [(Portuguese-speaking African Countries)] and East Timor?

      (1)  Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Tunisia, of the other part.

      OJ 1998 L 97, p. 2.

      (2)  OJ 1977 L 336, p. 15.

      (3)  Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Lebanon, of the other part.

      OJ 2006 L 143, p. 2.


title: Case T-13/02: Action brought on 24 January 2002 by Falk-Ulrich von Hoff against the European Parliament

text:
20.4.2002                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 97/11
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities (Agent: H. van Lier) — application for an order
                         of 23 January 2002                                requiring the Commission to pay the sum of 68 070 EUR in
                                                                           the context of ALTENER-AGORES contract No X-
in Case T-386/00 Margarida Gonçalves v European Parlia-                    VII/4.1030/Z/99-085, together with interest at the Belgian
                               ment (1)                                    statutory rate applying from 23 July 2001, to be paid within
                                                                           eight days from delivery of the decision to be given, or in
(Officials of the European Communities — Competition                       default to pay a periodic penalty of 100 EUR for each day’s
notice — Non-admission to a competition — Consistency                      delay — the President of the Court of First Instance made an
between pleas put forward during the administrative proce-                 order on 7 December 2001, the operative part of which is as
dure and those set out in the application — Admissibility —                follows:
Statement of reasons — Administration’s duty to have
regard for the interests of officials and the principle of sound           1.    The application for interim measures is dismissed.
                           administration)
                                                                           2.    The costs are reserved.
                           (2002/C 97/22)
                     (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-386/00, Margarida Gonçalves, former member of
the temporary staff, residing in Brussels, represented by                  Action brought on 24 January 2002 by Falk-Ulrich von
L. Tinti, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg,                           Hoff against the European Parliament
against European Parliament (Agents: J.F. De Wachter and
D. Moore) — application to annul the decisions of the selection                                       (Case T-13/02)
board rejecting the application of the applicant in internal
competition B/172, establishing the list of suitable candidates                                       (2002/C 97/24)
and all decisions taken by the defendant on the basis of such
decisions, and for compensation for the pecuniary and non-
pecuniary damage allegedly suffered as a result of those                                      (Language of the case: German)
decisions, — the Court of First Instance (Single Judge: M. Vila-
ras); Registrar: J. Plingers, Administrator, has given a judgment
on 23 January 2002, the operative part of which is as follows:             An action against the European Parliament was brought before
                                                                           the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
1.    The application is dismissed.                                        24 January 2002 by Falk-Ulrich von Hoff, of Berlin (Germany),
                                                                           represented by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer.
2.    The parties shall bear their own costs.
(1) OJ 2001 C 61.                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —     annul the European Parliament’s decision of 17 April
                                                                                2001;
                                                                           —     order the European Parliament to pay to the applicant
                                                                                the installation allowance amounting to two months’
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                                                                                salary, together with interest at the rate of 8 % from the
                             INSTANCE
                                                                                date of the request (15 March);
                        of 7 December 2001                                 —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
in Case T-192/01 R: Lior GEIE v Commission of the
                      European Communities
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
(Procedure for interim relief — Payment under a contract —
                  Interim measures — Urgency)
                                                                           In the context of the transfer of the liaison centre of the
                                                                           European People’s Party from Bonn to Berlin, the applicant,
                           (2002/C 97/23)                                  whose place of employment was Brussels and who took over
                                                                           as head of the liaison centre, was moved to Berlin. He applied
                     (Language of the case: French)                        for the grant of an installation allowance pursuant to Article 5
                                                                           of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations. The institution refused
                                                                           that application on the ground that the applicant had returned
In Case T-192/01 R: Lior GEIE, established in Brussels, repre-             to live with his family, who had already been residing in Berlin
sented by V. Marien and J. Choucroun, lawyers, with an address             prior to the transfer of the applicant.
 ---pagebreak--- C 97/12               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      20.4.2002
The applicant asserts that the decision refusing his application        Grounds of claim:              —     incorrect application of the
is contrary to Article 5(2) of Annex VII, since the conditions                                               provisions of Regulation
for granting an installation allowance are fulfilled, and that the                                           (EC) No 40/94 (1) and of
European Parliament cannot validly rely on the ground of                                                     Regulation (EC) No 2868/
exclusion laid down in Article 5(4) of Annex VII.                                                            95 (2);
                                                                                —     incorrect application of
                                                                                Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of
                                                                                Regulation (EC) No 40/94;
                                                                                —     incorrect application of
                                                                                Article 7(3) of Regulation
                                                                                (EC) No 40/94.
Action brought on 30 January 2002 by Audi AG against
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
                                                                        (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20.12.1003 on the Com-
                  (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                            munity trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
                                                                            (2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December
                                                                            1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the
                         (Case T-16/02)                                     Community trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).
                         (2002/C 97/25)
                  (Language of the case: German)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                  Action brought on 29 January 2002 by Fred Olsen S.A.
30 January 2002 by Audi AG, of Ingolstadt (Germany),                         against Commission of the European Communities
represented by L. von Zumbusch, lawyer.
                                                                                (Case T-17/02)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (2002/C 97/26)
—     annul the decision adopted on 8 November 2001 by the
      First Board of Appeal in appeal No R 0652/2000-1;
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
—     order the defendant Office to pay the costs.
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 29 January 2002 by Fred Olsen
                                                                        S.A., whose registered office is in Santa Cruz de Tenerife
The trade mark con-           the verbal mark ‘TDI’ — appli-            (Spain), represented by Rafael Marı́n Correa, lawyer.
cerned:                       cation No 19752
Goods or services:            goods and services in Classes 12          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                              and 37 (vehicles and constructive
                              parts thereof; repair and mainten-        —      annul the decision of the Commission of 25 July 2001
                              ance of vehicles)
Decision        contested     refusal of registration by the            —      order the Commission of the European Communities
before the Board of           examiner                                         to initiate the procedure for verifying whether aid is
Appeal:                                                                        compatible with the EC Treaty in accordance with its
                                                                               judgment;
Decision of the Board of      rejection of the appeal
Appeal:                                                                 —      order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case T-169/12: Action brought on 10 April 2012 — CHEMK and KF v Council

text:
               9.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/34

         Action brought on 10 April 2012 — CHEMK and KF v Council
   (Case T-169/12)
   2012/C 165/56
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Chelyabinsk electrometallurgical integrated plant OAO (CHEMK) (Chelyabinsk, Russia); and Kuzneckie ferrosplavy OAO (KF) (Novokuznetsk, Russia) (represented by: B. Evtimov, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 60/2012 of 16 January 2012 terminating the partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of ferro-silicon originating, inter alia, in Russia (OJ L 22, p. 1), in so far as it affects the applicants; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the cost incurred by the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that the Institutions breached Article 11(9) in connection with Article 2(12) of ‘the basic Regulation’ (1) by failing to establish the amount of the dumping margin of the applicants. In addition, or in the alternative, the Institutions erred in law and exceeded their margin of discretion in their powers of prospective assessment under Article 11(3) by allowing the findings on lasting nature of changed circumstances to subsume the dumping findings, vitiating the findings on the changed dumping margin in the interim review and extending the scope of analysis of continuation of dumping so as to cover/affect the findings on dumping margin. Lastly, the Institutions infringed the applicants’ rights of defence with respect to dumping by failing to disclose their final calculation of dumping to the applicants.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that the Institutions made a manifest error of assessment in concluding that an adjustment for SG&A costs and profit of RFAI had to be made to the applicants’ export price and in the related finding that the applicants and RFAI did not constitute a single economic entity.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that the Institutions breached Article 11(3), third subparagraph and/or made manifest errors of assessment in concluding that there was no lasting change of circumstances with respect to the reduced dumping margin of the applicants.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (‘the basic Regulation’) (OJ L 343, p. 51)


title: Case C-680/16 P: Appeal brought on 23 December 2016 by Dr. August Wolff GmbH & Co. KG Arzneimittel and Remedia d.o.o. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 October 2016 in Case T-672/14 Dr. August Wolff GmbH & Co. KG Arzneimittel and Remedia d.o.o. v European Commission

text:
               13.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/13

         Appeal brought on 23 December 2016 by Dr. August Wolff GmbH & Co. KG Arzneimittel and Remedia d.o.o. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 October 2016 in Case T-672/14 Dr. August Wolff GmbH & Co. KG Arzneimittel and Remedia d.o.o. v European Commission

   (Case C-680/16 P)
   (2017/C 078/19)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellants: Dr. August Wolff GmbH & Co. KG Arzneimittel, Remedia d.o.o. (represented by: P. Klappich and C. Schmidt, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought by the appellants:

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               1.

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2016 in Case T-672/14 and annul Commission Implementing Decision C(2014) 6030 final of 19 August 2014 concerning, in the framework of Article 31 of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, the marketing authorisations for human medicinal products for topical use containing high concentrations of estradiol in so far as that decision requires Member States to comply with the obligations imposed in the implementing decision for the medicinal products listed, and those not listed, in Annex I containing 0,01 % estradiol by weight for topical use, with the exception of the restriction that the medicinal products mentioned in Annex I to the implementing decision containing 0,01 % estradiol by weight for topical use may be administered only intravaginally;

               2.

               in the alternative,
               set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-672/14 and refer the case back to that Court;

               3.

               order the respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The appellants rely on three grounds of appeal.

               1.

                  First ground of appeal: infringement of Articles 31 and 32 of Directive 2001/83/EC

               It is submitted in this connection that the disputed implementing decision is based on a procedure which was initiated and conducted in a procedurally unlawful manner. The appellants first of all contend that, contrary to the first sentence of Article 31(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC, (1) the procedure was initiated not before, but only after the application for renewed authorisation of the medicinal product had been rejected. In the absence of up-to-date reports on safety concerns, there was also no particular EU interest at issue. Moreover, the appointment of a member of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (‘the CHMP’) as chief reporter from the Member State in which national proceedings had been initiated constitutes an infringement of the right under Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to have one’s affairs handled fairly and impartially. There is, in any event, objective and subjective partiality if, at the time when proceedings are initiated, proceedings are still pending between the Member State which provides the chief reporter and the holder of the marketing authorisation concerning the refusal to renew the authorisation for a medicinal product. Lastly, the appellants invoke an infringement of the right to a fair hearing, since in the proceedings before the CHMP the first appellant was not given an opportunity to comment on the intended content of the modification to the marketing authorisation.

               2.

                  Second ground of appeal: infringement of the first sentence of Article 116 and of the first sentence of Article 126 of Directive 2001/83/EC

               The appellants here invoke, first of all, an infringement of the principles of a balanced burden of demonstration and proof since the CHMP based an altered benefit/risk assessment solely on the absence of studies relating to a merely hypothetical risk. The risk assessment undertaken by the CHMP was also flawed, since it failed to have sufficient regard to pharmacovigilance information. In that connection, the fact was overlooked that, during a market presence spanning more than 45 years, there had been no reports of serious risks resulting from use of the medicinal product that might have been capable of supporting the hypothetical risks relied on by the CHMP. The appellants claim further that the CHMP report does not contain any cogent or scientifically-sound justification for those hypothetical risks.

               3.

                  Third ground of appeal: infringement of the principles of proportionality and equal treatment

               The appellants first rely on an infringement of the principle of proportionality inasmuch as, at least at the level of legal effect, account should have been taken of the fact that the risks were merely hypothetical and that it is extremely improbable that they would arise. It would therefore have been proportionate merely to update the warnings or to order a safety study to be carried out. Moreover, ruling out repeated use infringes the principle of equal treatment, since only an updating of the warnings was undertaken in relation to comparable medicinal products. The ruling out of repeated use was also ordered only in relation to medicinal products for which a risk of life-threatening health risks had been established.

      (1)  Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67).


title: Case F-45/13: Action brought on 15 May 2013 — ZZ and Others v EIB

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/62

         Action brought on 15 May 2013 — ZZ and Others v EIB
   (Case F-45/13)
   2013/C 207/108
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: L. Levi)

      Defendant: European Investment Bank

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decisions contained in salary slips to apply the general decision of the European Investment Bank setting a salary progression capped at 2.3 % for all staff and the decision establishing a merit grid entailing the loss of 1 to 3 % of salary and the subsequent application for an order that the institution pay the difference in remuneration together with damages.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decisions to apply to the applicants the decision of the EIB’s Board of Directors of 18 December 2012 setting a salary progression capped at 2.3 % and the decision of the EIB’s Management Committee of 29 January 2013 establishing a merit grid entailing the loss of 1 to 3 % of salary, according to the applicants, decisions that are contained in the salary slips of April 2013, and the annulment to the same extent of all the decisions contained in subsequent salary slips and, so far as necessary, the annulment of the information letter sent by the defendant to the applicants on 5 February 2013;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the difference in remuneration resulting from the aforementioned decisions of the EIB’s Board of Directors of 18 December 2012 and of the EIB’s Management Committee of 29 January 2013 in relation to the application of the merit grid ‘4-3-2-1-0’ and the ‘young’ grid ‘5-4-3-1-0’ or, in the alternative, in respect of applicants awarded a grade A, in relation to the application of the merit grid 3-2-1-0-0 and, in respect of applicants covered by the ‘young’ grid, in relation to a young grid ‘4-3-2-0-0’; with interest on arrears to be added to that difference in remuneration with effect from 12 April 2013 and then on the 12th day of every month until full payment, the rate of interest being the ECB rate, increased by three percentage points;

               —

               order the defendant to pay damages for the loss suffered by reason of the loss of purchasing power, such loss being assessed equitably, and on a provisional basis, at 1.5 % of the monthly remuneration of each applicant;

               —

               order the EIB to pay the costs.


title: Case C-38/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Deputy Traffic Commissioner, North Western Traffic Area (United Kingdom), by order of 2 February 2000, in the public inquiry concerning Aaron Theophilus Joseph (trading as Woodcroft Haulage)

text:
29.4.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 122/11
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der                  of 2 February 2000, which was received at the Court Registry
Nederlanden by judgment of 4 February 2000 in the case                   on 11 February 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the public
of Herbert Weber v Universal Ogden Services Ltd, a                       inquiry concerning Aaron Theophilus Joseph (trading as
            company incorporated under Scots law                         Woodcroft Haulage), on the following question:
                           (Case C-37/00)
                                                                         Since all serious offences are dealt with under paragraph 2 (a)
                                                                         of Schedule 3, to the 1995 Act, was the removal of the word
                          (2000/C 122/16)                                ‘repeatedly’ in relation to road transport offences (paragraph 2
                                                                         (b) of Schedule 3) necessary in order to implement Council
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   Directive 98/76/EC (1) of 1 October 1998 and, if so, is the
European Communities by a judgment of the Hoge Raad der                  correct interpretation of 98/76/EC of 1 October 1998 that
Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands), which was                mandatory loss of repute must occur if an individual is
received at the Court Registry on 10 February 2000, for a                convicted of 2 or more road transport offences in the course
preliminary ruling in the case of Herbert Weber v Universal              of a single court appearance?
Ogden Services Ltd, a company incorporated under Scots law,
on the following questions:
                                                                         (1) amending Directive 96/2/EC on admission to the occupation of
(a) Must work carried out on the Netherlands section of the                  road haulage operator and road passenger transport operator and
     continental shelf under the North Sea by an employee as                 mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of
                                                                             formal qualifications intended to facilitate for these operators the
     defined in the Wet Arbeid Mijnbouw Noordzee (1) (Law on                 right to freedom of establishment in national and international
     Mining Work in the North Sea) (‘WAMN’) be regarded as                   transport operation (OJ L 277 of 14.10.1998, p. 17).
     or treated as equivalent to work carried out in the
     Netherlands for purposes of the application of Article 5(1)
     of the Brussels Convention? (2)
(b) If so, in order to answer the question whether the employee
     must be regarded as having carried out his work ‘habitually’
     in the Netherlands, must account be taken of the entire
     period of his employment or is only his most recent period
     of employment relevant?
(c) In answering Question (b) must a distinction be drawn                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Vestre Landsret
     between the period before the WAMN entered into force               by order of 9 February 2000 in the case of Andersen og
     — when Netherlands law had not yet designated a court                                Jensen ApS v Skatteministeriet
     with territorial jurisdiction to deal with a case such as the
     present — and the period after the WAMN entered into
     force?                                                                                (Case C-43/00)
(1) Law of 2 November 1992, Staatsblad 592.                                                        (2000/C 122/18)
(2) Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the
    Enforcement of Judgements in Civil and Commercial Matters.
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by order of 9 February 2000 by the
                                                                         Vestre Landsret (Western Regional Court), which was received
                                                                         at the Court Registry on 14 February 2000, for a preliminary
                                                                         ruling in the case of Andersen og Jensen ApS v Skatteminis-
                                                                         teriet (Finance Ministry) on the following questions:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Deputy Traffic
Commissioner, North Western Traffic Area (United                         Question 1
Kingdom), by order of 2 February 2000, in the public
inquiry concerning Aaron Theophilus Joseph (trading as
                       Woodcroft Haulage)                                Must the provisions of Directive 90/434/EEC (1) (the merger
                                                                         directive) be understood as meaning that it is contrary to the
                           (Case C-38/00)                                provisions of that directive, in particular Article 2(c) and (i),
                                                                         for the authorities of a Member State to refuse to treat an
                                                                         arrangement as being covered by the directive’s provisions on
                          (2000/C 122/17)                                the transfer of assets where the effect of the arrangement in
                                                                         question is that all of the transferring company’s assets and
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   liabilities are transferred to a second company (the receiving
European Communities by an order of the Deputy Traffic                   company), with the exception of a minor block of shares and
Commissioner, North Western Traffic Area (United Kingdom),               the proceeds of a loan taken out by the transferring company?


title: Case C-400/14 P: Appeal brought on 20 August 2014 by Basic AG Lebensmittelhandel against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 26 June 2014 in Case T-372/11: Basic AG Lebensmittelhandel v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               1.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 431/9

         Appeal brought on 20 August 2014 by Basic AG Lebensmittelhandel against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 26 June 2014 in Case T-372/11: Basic AG Lebensmittelhandel v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-400/14 P)
   (2014/C 431/15)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Basic AG Lebensmittelhandel (represented by: D. Altenburg, T. Haug, Rechtsanwälte)

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

      Form of order sought

   The appellant requests that:

               —

               The decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (General Court) of June 26, 2014 (Case T-372/11) shall be annulled and the case shall be referred to the General Court for reapplication;

               —

               The defendant shall bear all costs of this proceeding.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant contests the General Court's interpretation of the definition of ‘distribution services’ which is — as a matter of law — a preliminary issue in the assessment of similarity of services. The applicant consequently claims that the General Court has taken an incorrect perception as the legal basis for its subsequent assessment concerning the likelihood of confusion between the trademarks at issue.
   The applicant would point out that the ECJ's main function is to supply a uniform interpretation of the concept and scope of the respective services (C-418/02, paragraph 33 — Praktiker; joined cases C-414/99 to C-416/99 Zino Davidoff and Levi Strauss, paragraphs 42 and 43) and of the judgment ‘IP-Translator’ (C-307/10, June 19, 2012) whereby ‘goods and services have to
      be definable in an objective manner in order to fulfil the trademark's function as an indication of
      origin’ and asks the ECJ for a ‘sufficient precise and clear’ definition of ‘distribution services’.
   In the opinion of the applicant, the service ‘distribution’ has a very narrow scope and comprises only the activities ‘transport; packaging and storage of goods’ but not ‘retail and wholesale’ services. The applicant further points out that the Court of Justice clarified in the ‘Praktiker’ judgment that the objective of ‘retail’ (class 35) is — in contrast to the services in class 39 — the sale of goods to consumers, whereas these activities consist, ‘inter alia, in selecting an
      assortment of goods offered for sale and in offering a variety of services aimed at inducing the
      consumer to conclude the transaction with the trader in question rather than with a competitor’.
   The general classification of ‘distribution’ in Nice Class 39 cannot be ignored in the view of the applicant since the ECJ expressly underlined its argumentation in its Praktiker decision in consideration of the Explanatory Note of Nice Class 35 (C-418/02, paragraph 36).
   Therefore the decision of the General Court must be annulled and referred back for reapplication.


title: Case T-330/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 November 2008 — Kuiburi Fruit Canning v Council

text:
               24.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/36

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 November 2008 — Kuiburi Fruit Canning v Council
   (Case T-330/07) (1)

   (2009/C 19/70)

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 July 2004 in Case C-139/03: Commission of the European Communities against Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to transpose Directive 2000/38/EC)

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/12

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 15 July 2004
   in Case C-139/03: Commission of the European Communities against Federal Republic of Germany (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Failure to transpose Directive 2000/38/EC)
   (2004/C 228/23)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-139/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J.C. Schieferer and H. Støvlbæk) against Federal Republic of Germany (Agent: A. Tiemann) — application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2000/38/EC of 5 June 2000 amending Chapter Va (Pharmacovigilance) of Council Directive 75/319/EEC on the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to medicinal products (OJ 2000 L 139, p. 28), or by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, K. Lenaerts, E. Juhász and M. Ilešič, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 July 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               By failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the provisions of Commission Directive 2000/38/EC of 5 June 2000 amending Chapter Va (Pharmacovigilance) of Council Directive 75/319/EEC on the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to medicinal products, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               2.

               The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 146 of 21.6.2003.


               17.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 229/40

         Removal from the Register of Case T-141/04 (1)

   (2005/C 229/82)

      (Language of the case: Finnish)

   By order of 30 June 2005, the President of the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-141/04, Lapin liitto and Others v Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 146 of 29.5.2004.


title: Case C-121/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Association nationale des opérateurs détaillants en énergie (ANODE) v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Économie, de l’Industrie et du Numérique, Commission de régulation de l’énergie, ENGIE, formerly GDF Suez (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Directive 2009/73/EC — Energy — Gas sector — Fixing of prices for supplying natural gas to final customers — Regulated tariffs — Obstacle — Compatibility — Criteria of assessment — Objectives of security of supply and territorial cohesion)

text:
               31.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/6

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Association nationale des opérateurs détaillants en énergie (ANODE) v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Économie, de l’Industrie et du Numérique, Commission de régulation de l’énergie, ENGIE, formerly GDF Suez
   (Case C-121/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Directive 2009/73/EC - Energy - Gas sector - Fixing of prices for supplying natural gas to final customers - Regulated tariffs - Obstacle - Compatibility - Criteria of assessment - Objectives of security of supply and territorial cohesion))
   (2016/C 402/07)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Association nationale des opérateurs détaillants en énergie (ANODE)

      Defendants: Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Économie, de l’Industrie et du Numérique, Commission de régulation de l’énergie, ENGIE, formerly GDF Suez

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 3(1) of Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC must be interpreted as meaning that intervention by a Member State consisting in requiring certain suppliers, including the incumbent supplier, to offer to supply natural gas to final consumers at regulated tariffs constitutes by its very nature an obstacle to the achievement of a competitive market in natural gas as provided for in that provision, and that obstacle exists even though the intervention does not preclude competing offers from being made at lower prices than those tariffs by any supplier in the market.

               2.

               Article 3(2) of Directive 2009/73, read in the light of Articles 14 TFEU and 106 TFEU and Protocol (No 26) on services of general interest, annexed to the EU Treaty, as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon, and the FEU Treaty, must be interpreted as allowing the Member States to assess whether, in the general economic interest, public service obligations relating to the price of supply of natural gas should be imposed on undertakings operating in the gas sector, in order in particular to ensure security of supply and territorial cohesion, provided that, first, all the conditions set out in Article 3(2) of the directive are satisfied, specifically the non-discriminatory nature of such obligations, and, secondly, that the imposition of those obligations complies with the principle of proportionality.
               Article 3(2) of Directive 2009/73 must be interpreted as not precluding a method of determination of prices based on taking costs into consideration, provided that the application of the method does not have the consequence that the State intervention goes beyond what is necessary for achieving the objectives of general economic interest pursued.

      (1)  OJ C 178, 1.6.2015.


title: Case T-744/16: Action brought on 24 October 2016 — Generis — Farmacêutica/EUIPO — Corpak MedSystems (CORGRIP)

text:
               19.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 475/22

         Action brought on 24 October 2016 — Generis — Farmacêutica/EUIPO — Corpak MedSystems (CORGRIP)
   (Case T-744/16)
   (2016/C 475/33)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Generis — Farmacêutica, SA (Amadora, Portugal) (represented by: J. Paulo Sena Mioludo, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Corpak MedSystems, Inc. (Buffalo Grove, Illinois, United States)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘CORGRIP’ — Application for registration No 12 437 919

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 July 2016 in Case R 2443/2015-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               maintain the decision of the Opposition Division of 15 October 2015 in Opposition B 002334129;

               —

               upheld the Opposition B 002334129;

               —

               refuse in its entirety the EU Trademark Application No. 012437919 ‘CORGRIP’;

               —

               order EUIPO to bear its own costs and pay those of the Appellant.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 29 September 1999 in Joined Cases T-148/98 and T-162/98: J.G. Evans and Others and South Wales Small Mines Association v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Lateness — Inadmissibility)

text:
C 34/22                  EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                           5.2.2000
indicated by the applicant, and an award of compensation for              2. The actions are dismissed as inadmissible.
non-material damage which he alleges he has sustained and
which he assesses provisionally at BEF 100 000 — the Court                3. It is unnecessary to rule on the application for legal aid made in
of First Instance (single Judge), J. Azizi, sitting as a single               Case T-148/98.
Judge; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, gave a judgment on
9 December 1999, in which it:                                             4. It is unnecessary to rule on the applications for leave to intervene
                                                                              made by PowerGen UK plc, National Power plc and British Coal
1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible as far as the second part of          Corporation.
     the second plea is concerned;
                                                                          5. The applicants shall bear their own costs and, jointly and
2. Dismisses the remainder of the action for annulment as                     severally, pay those incurred by the Commission.
     unfounded;
3. Dismisses the action for compensation as unfounded;                    (1) OJ No C 358 of 21.11.1998 and No C 174 of 19.6.1999.
4. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
(1) OJ 1999 C 174.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 12 November 1999
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               in Case T-93/99: Beatrice Bonaiti Brighina v Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities (1)
                      of 29 September 1999
                                                                          (Officials — Transfers of part of remuneration in the
in Joined Cases T-148/98 and T-162/98: J.G. Evans and                     currency of a Member State other than that of the seat of the
Others and South Wales Small Mines Association v                          institution — Home-purchase savings plan — Requirement
        Commission of the European Communities (1)                        of an undertaking by the financial institution to inform the
                                                                          institution of the existence of a request to liquidate the funds
    (Action for annulment — Lateness — Inadmissibility)                                — Application manifestly unfounded)
                           (2000/C 34/42)                                                            (2000/C 34/43)
                    (Language of the case: English)                                           (Language of the case: Italian)
In Joined Cases T-148/98 and T-162/98: J.G. Evans, Gerry                  In Case T-93/99: Beatrice Bonaiti Brighina, an official at the
Plant and Mary Kathleen Plant, Dennis Jones, William Meyrick,             Joint Research Centre, Ispra, represented by Mirco Rizzoglio,
Glen Jones and Daphne Jones, David V. Austin, Mostyn Jones,               of the Milan Bar, and Franco Colussi, of the Luxembourg Bar,
Fforch-y-Garron Coal Company Ltd, John Phillips, Desmond                  with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Ivor Evans, David Raymond Evans, D.B. Diplock, R.T. Kings-                Mr Colussi, 36 Rue de Wiltz, v Commission of the European
ton, J.R. McCann, and De Powell, established in the United                Communities (Agent: Gianluigi Valsesia) — application for
Kingdom, represented by Barbara Hewson, of the Bar of                     annulment of the Commission’s decision rejecting the request
England and Wales, and Thomas Graham, Solicitor, with an                  to transfer part of the applicant’s salary to a home-purchase
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Messrs                 savings account in the absence of an undertaking by the bank
Loesch and Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe and South Wales Small                    to communicate any release of the money so as to allow the
Mines Association, based in Fochriw, Near Bargoed, United                 institution to monitor the actual use of the funds — the Court
Kingdom, represented by Thomas Sharpe QC and Mark                         of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts,
Brealey, Barrister, of the Bar of England and Wales, and Sarah            President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
Llewellyn Jones, Solicitor, with an address for service in                made an order on 12 November 1999, the operative part of
Luxembourg at the office of Victor Gillen, 13 Rue Aldringen,              which is as follows:
against Commission of the European Communities (Agent
Kirsi Leivo) — application for annulment of Commission                    1. The application is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation
Decision No 15656 of 30 July 1998 rejecting a complaint of                    in law.
price discrimination — the Court of First Instance (Second
Chamber), composed of: A. Potocki, President, C.W. Bellamy                2. The parties shall bear their own costs.
and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
29 September 1999, the operative part of which is as follows:             (1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.
1. Cases T-148/98 and T-162/98 are joined for the purposes of
     the order.


title: Case C-373/16 P: Appeal brought on 6 July 2016 by Aughinish Alumina Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 22 April 2016 in Joined Cases T-50/06 RENV II and T-69/06 RENV II: Ireland and Aughinish Alumina Ltd v European Commission

text:
               22.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/19

         Appeal brought on 6 July 2016 by Aughinish Alumina Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 22 April 2016 in Joined Cases T-50/06 RENV II and T-69/06 RENV II: Ireland and Aughinish Alumina Ltd v European Commission
   (Case C-373/16 P)
   (2016/C 305/28)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Aughinish Alumina Ltd (‘AAL’) (represented by: C. Little, C. Waterson, solicitors)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Ireland, European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               quash the judgment of the General Court dated 22 April 2016 in Case T-69/06 RENV II.

               —

               order the Commission to pay all of the costs incurred by AAL in these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   AAL submits two grounds of appeal against the Judgment.

      First plea: Error in law in assessment of exceptional circumstances; infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations; failure to state reasons.

   AAL submits that the General Court erred in law in its assessment of AAL's legitimate expectations, in particular, in assessing the existence of ‘exceptional circumstances’. This plea is split into four parts:
   First part: The General Court erred considering the scope and effect of the Judgment of the Court in Case C-272/12 P.
   Second part: The General Court erred in finding that AAL's situation should be distinguished from that in Case 223/85 RSV.
   Third part: The General Court erred in interpreting the Demesa case law (Case C-183/02 P and C-187/02 P) as bringing an end to AAL's legitimate expectations of non-recovery.
   Fourth part: The General Court erred in failing to conduct the requisite balancing exercise between public and private interests. In doing so the General Court infringed the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and compounded its error by a failure to state reasons.

      Second plea: Error in law regarding the interpretation of Article 1 (b)(i) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 659/1999
       (1).
   AAL submits that the General Court erred in law in stating and applying the conditions under which aid will be classified as existing aid. In particular, AAL submits that the General Court erred in its interpretation of Article 1 (b)(i) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 659/1999.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty

      OJ L 83, p. 1


title: Appeal brought on 14 August 1998 by the Union Européenne de l'Artisanat et des Petites et Moyennes Entreprises (UEAPME) against the judgment delivered on 17 June 1998 by the Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-135/96 between the Union Européenne de l'Artisanat et des Petites et Moyennes Entreprises (UEAPME), supported by Confédération Générale des Petites et Moyennes Entreprises et du Patronat Réel (CGPME), Union Professionnelle Artisanale (UPA), Nationaal Christelijk Middenstandsverbond (NCMV), Koninklijke Vereniging MKB-Nederland, Fédération des Artisans, Confederazione Generale Italiana del Artigianato (Confartigianato), Wirtschaftskammer Österreich, Bundesvereinigung der Fachverbände des Deutschen Handwerks eV (BFH), and the Council of the European Union, supported by the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-316/98 P)

text:
C 312/6               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  10.10.98
Regulation. On the other hand, it must presumably, be                1. What should the requirements be for furnishing proof
open to the Commission to bring proceedings in respect of                 of the place where an irregularity or offence was
decisions of the President of the Office directly under                   actually committed in the course of a transport
Article 173. That the Member States should be differently                 operation carried out under cover of a TIR carnet
situated from the Commission in the matter of challenging                 (first subparagraph of Article 454(3) of Commission
such decisions seems constitutionally anomalous.                          Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (OJ L 253, 11.10.1993,
                                                                          p. 1))? Is a statement from the carnet holder and the
(1) OJ C 199, 28.6.1997, p. 39.                                           testimony of the lorry driver who has effected the
(2) Case 294/83, [1986] ECR 1339.                                         transport for the carnet holder sufficient or must the
(3) Joined Cases 193/87 and 194/87, [1989] ECR 1045.                      proof comprise documents which unambiguously show
                                                                          that the competent authorities in the other Member
                                                                          State reached the conclusion that the irregularity or
                                                                          offence was committed on their territory?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht              2. If the Court of Justice takes the view that the actual
München by order of that court of 24 June 1998 in the                     place where the irregularity or offence was commited
case of Holz Geenen GmbH against Oberfinanzdirektion                      can be proved on the basis of statements of the carnet
                           München                                        holder and the testimony of the lorry driver who
                                                                          effected the transport operation, are the third and
                       (Case C-309/98)                                    fourth subparagraphs of Article 454(3) of Directive
                         (98/C 312/10)                                    (EEC) No 2454/93 to be interpreted as meaning that
                                                                          they also apply in cases where the charges were
                                                                          recovered in the Member State where the irregularity
                                                                          or offence was detected, even though it has been
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          proved that the irregularity or offence was actually
European Communities by order of the Third Senate of
                                                                          commited in another Member State?
the Finanzgericht München (Finance Court, Munich) of
24 June 1998, received at the Court Registry on 10 August
1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Geenen
GmbH against Oberfinanzdirektion München (Principal
Revenue Office, Munich) on the following question:
Is Commission Regulation (EC) No 1509/97 of 30 July
1997 concerning the classification of certain goods in the           Appeal brought on 14 August 1998 by the Union Euro-
Combined Nomenclature (OJ L 204, 31.7.1997, p. 8) Ð                  peÂenne de l'Artisanat et des Petites et Moyennes Entrepri-
in this case rectangular wood blocks, 48 or 85 mm wide              ses (UEAPME) against the judgment delivered on 17 June
72 mm high, used in the construction of window frames,               1998 by the Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition, of
consisting of layers of wood glued together with the grain           the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
running parallel and with slightly rounded edges Ð                   in Case T-135/96 between the Union EuropeÂenne de
invalid?                                                             l'Artisanat et des Petites et Moyennes Entreprises
                                                                     (UEAPME), supported by ConfeÂdeÂration GeÂneÂrale des
                                                                     Petites et Moyennes Entreprises et du Patronat ReÂel
                                                                     (CGPME), Union Professionnelle Artisanale (UPA), Natio-
                                                                     naal Christelijk Middenstandsverbond (NCMV), Konink-
                                                                     lijke Vereniging MKB-Nederland, FeÂdeÂration des Artisans,
                                                                     Confederazione Generale Italiana del Artigianato (Confar-
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof            tigianato), Wirtschaftskammer Österreich, Bundesvereini-
by order of that court of 7 July 1998 in the case of Haupt-          gung der Fachverbände des Deutschen Handwerks eV
zollamt Neubrandenburg against Leszek Labis trading                  (BFH), and the Council of the European Union, supported
as Przedsiebiorstwo Transportowo-Handlowe Met-Trans',                     by the Commission of the European Communities
                            PL-Reda                                                        (Case C-316/98 P)
                       (Case C-310/98)
                                                                                (98/C 312/12)
                         (98/C 312/11)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the               An appeal against the judgment delivered on 17 June 1998
European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof                 by the Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition, of the
(Federal Finance Court) of 7 July 1998, received at the              Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
Court Registry on 10 August 1998, for a preliminary                  Case T-135/96 between the Union EuropeÂenne de l'Artisa-
ruling in the case of Hauptzollamt Neubrandenburg                    nat et des Petites et Moyennes Entreprises (UEAPME),
against Leszek Labis trading as Przedsiebiorstwo                     supported by ConfeÂdeÂration GeÂneÂrale des Petites et
Transportowo-Handlowe Met-Trans', PL-Reda on the                    Moyennes Entreprises et du Patronat ReÂel (CGPME),
following questions:                                                 Union Professionnelle Artisanale (UPA), Nationaal Christe-
 ---pagebreak--- 10.10.98             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 312/7
lijk Middenstandsverbond (NCMV), Koninklijke Vereni-                    ETUC have sufficient collective representativity, they
ging MKB-Nederland, FeÂdeÂration des Artisans, Confedera-               Ð to the exclusion of all other associations Ð will
zione Generale Italiana del Artigianato (Confartigianato),              always have the right to negotiate the framework
Wirtschaftskammer Österreich, Bundesvereinigung der                     agreements implemented by Community legislative
Fachverbände des Deutschen Handwerks eV (BFH), and                      instrument pursuant to Article 4(2), first paragraph, of
the Council of the European Union, supported by the                     the Agreement on social policy. Such a system is also
Commission of the European Communities, was brought                     in breach of the freedom of association of national
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                 associations and their members. Thus, if the
on 14 August 1998 by the Union EuropeÂenne de l'Artisa-                 associations which are members of UEAPME Ð or
nat et des Petites et Moyennes Entreprises (UEAPME),                    rather the SMUs which belong to members of
represented by Francis Herbert and Daniel Tomasevic, of                 UEAPME Ð wish one day to be involved in the
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                        negotiation of European framework agreements, they
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Katia Manhaeve, 56Ð58                     will be compelled to join UNICE so that the latter can
Rue Charles Martel.                                                     represent them,
The appellant claims that the Court should:                         Ð infringement of the procedural rules relating to the
                                                                        rights of the defence and the equality of arms in
                                                                        judicial proceedings: in the absence of any relevant
Ð set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of              evidence, the Court of First Instance cannot call in
    the European Communities of 17 June 1998 in Case                    question the fact that the applicant represents
    T-135/96 between the same parties,                                  undertakings with employees, while denying the
                                                                        applicant an opportunity to address that question
                                                                        (sufficient time being allowed for it to substantiate its
Ð annul Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 on
                                                                        reply). The approach of the Court of First Instance is
    the framework agreement on parental leave concluded
                                                                        all the more improper in view of the fact that it clearly
    by UNICE, CEEP and ETUC (1) in its entirety, or, in
                                                                        suggested in its questions at the end of the written
    the alternative, with respect solely to its application to
                                                                        procedure that the point at issue was the number of
    SMUs,
                                                                        undertakings represented, not the number of persons
                                                                        employed by those undertakings,
Ð order the Commission to pay all costs, including those
    incurred in the proceedings before the Court of First
    Instance.                                                       Ð breach of the obligation to state reasons.
                                                                    (1) OJ L 145, 19.6.1996, p. 4.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Ð Infringement of Article 2(2) of the Agreement on
    social policy concluded between the Member States of
    the European Community with the exception of the
    United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                                                                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesarbeits-
    Ireland, annexed to Protocol 14 on social policy,
                                                                    gericht Hamburg by order of that court of 24 July 1998
    annexed to the Treaty establishing the European
                                                                    in the case of Bärbel Kachelmann against Bankhaus
    Community: the Court of First Instance erroneously
                                                                                Hermann Lampe KG
    assessed the scope of Article 2(2) which, with a view
    to ensuring compliance with the clear and                                              (Case C-322/98)
    unconditional prohibition laid down therein, calls for
                                                                                (98/C 312/13)
    the participation of an association which is genuinely
    representative of SMUs and authorised by them to
    present their case. Respect for their prerogatives can
    only be ensured by direct recognition of the                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    association representing SMUs as having a right of              European Communities by order of the Sixth Chamber of
    action for annulment. The Court of Justice cannot, by           the Landesarbeitsgericht Hamburg (Higher Labour Court,
    means of a preliminary ruling Ð in so far as a                  Hamburg) of 24 July 1998, received at the Court Registry
    reference for such a ruling implies that a national             on 20 August 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
    court is confronted with a conflict between legal rules         Bärbel Kachelmann against Bankhaus Hermann Lampe
    after the Directive's transposition Ð express judicial          KG on the following question:
    condemnation of the unlawful situation until after it
    has been created,
                                                                    Is Article 5(1) of Directive 76/207/EEC (1) to be interpreted
                                                                    as meaning that, when applying paragraph 1(3) of the
Ð infringement of Article 4 of the Agreement on social              Kündigungsschutzgesetz (Law on Employment Protection)
    policy: the Court of First Instance misinterpreted the          Ð in this case in the version in force until 30 September
    meaning of management and labour'. It reasons that,            1996 Ð part-time female employees are to be regarded as
    provided it is established that UNICE, CEEP and                 comparable with male/female full-time employees in the


title: Case C-341/13: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Cruz & Companhia Lda v Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas, IP (IFAP) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of the European Union’s financial interests — Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 — Article 3 — Proceedings relating to irregularities — European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) — Recovery of export refunds wrongly received — Limitation period — Application of a longer national limitation period — General limitation period — Administrative measures and penalties)

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/13

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Cruz & Companhia Lda v Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas, IP (IFAP)
   (Case C-341/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of the European Union’s financial interests - Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 - Article 3 - Proceedings relating to irregularities - European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) - Recovery of export refunds wrongly received - Limitation period - Application of a longer national limitation period - General limitation period - Administrative measures and penalties))
   2014/C 421/17
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Cruz & Companhia Lda

      Respondent: Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas, IP (IFAP)

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests must be interpreted as applying to procedures brought by the national authorities against recipients of European Union aid following irregularities found by the national body responsible for paying the export refunds under the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF).

               2.

               The limitation period referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95 is applicable not only to proceedings brought in respect of irregularities leading to the imposition of administrative penalties within the meaning of Article 5 of that regulation, but also to proceedings leading to the adoption of administrative measures within the meaning of Article 4 of that regulation. Although Article 3(3) of that regulation permits Member States to apply longer limitation periods than those of four or three years provided for in the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) thereof, arising from general provisions of law pre-dating the adoption of that regulation, the application of a limitation period of 20 years goes beyond what is necessary to achieve the objective of protecting the European Union’s financial interests.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.


title: Case C-41/00 P: Appeal brought on 11 February 2000 by Interporc Im- und Export GmbH against the judgment delivered on 7 December 1999 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber, Extended Composition) in Case T-92/98 brought by Interporc Im- und Export GmbH against Commission of the European Communities

text:
27.5.2000             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 149/17
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
The Commission considers that France exhausted its right to             — Unlawfulness of the Commission’s examination of the
decide on deductible expenditure on 1 July 1982, that is to say             application for access to documents: the Court made
on the day it introduced a partial right to deduct VAT on gas               an incomplete and therefore unlawful appraisal of the
oil used as fuel (Law 82-540 of 28 June 1982). Since then                   appellant’s submissions. It considered neither its arguments
France has been outside the scope of Article 17(6) of Directive             concerning ‘forfeiture’ of the right to cite certain grounds
77/388/EEC and the transactions in question are now covered                 nor the argument that the Commission’s renewed refusal
by the general rule contained in Article 17(2). Accordingly the             was based on an incomplete legal appraisal of the grounds
French authorities are no longer empowered to lay down                      for refusal under consideration. Finally, the Court failed
specific conditions limiting the right to deduct under Article              entirely to address the fact that the Commission’s tactic of
17(2).                                                                      citing only one ground for refusal each time frustrates the
                                                                            subjective right to access to documents and gives rise to
                                                                            an unacceptable gap in legal protection.
                                                                        — Invalidity of the authorship rule by reason of breach of a
                                                                            higher-ranking principle of law, in the alternative
                                                                            erroneous interpretation and application in law and breach
                                                                            of the requirement to state reasons:
Appeal brought on 11 February 2000 by Interporc Im-                         — Because of geographical distance, linguistic and other
und Export GmbH against the judgment delivered on                                ‘technical’ problems — such as unfamiliarity with
7 December 1999 by the Court of First Instance of                                the allocation of the relevant responsibilities and
the European Communities (First Chamber, Extended                                procedures in third countries it is hardly ever possible
Composition) in Case T-92/98 brought by Interporc Im-                            for an individual to request access to and inspect
und Export GmbH against Commission of the European                               documents within the time period prescribed. The
                         Communities                                             Commission cannot evade its ‘constitutional’ duty to
                                                                                provide access to documents in its possession, simply
                                                                                by referring an applicant to the author of the docu-
                        (Case C-41/00 P)                                         ments, if the legal and technical requirements for the
                                                                                effective assertion of the right to access to documents
                                                                                are not thereby fulfilled. This is so a fortiori if the
                        (2000/C 149/27)                                          documents at issue are closely connected with the
                                                                                implementation of Community law, as here with the
                                                                                monitoring of a Community quota for the importation
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 7 December                           of Argentinian beef. Contrary to the view of the Court,
1999 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communi-                     the authorship rule breaches a higher-ranking principle
ties (First Chamber, extended composition) in Case T-92/98                       of law, it is incompatible with the requirement for
brought by Interporc Im- und Export GmbH against Com-                            transparency, which is a general principle of law based
mission of the European Communities was brought before the                       on the principle of democracy, and therefore void.
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 11 February
2000 by Interporc Im- und Export GmbH, represented by
Georg M. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt, Brussels and Hamburg, of
Gaedertz Rechtsanwälte, Avenue de Tervuren 35, B-1040                       — (In the alternative) A genuinely narrow construction
Brussels.                                                                        in the light of the (higher-ranking) requirement for
                                                                                transparency should have led to the interpretation of
                                                                                the authorship rule as a guideline, contrary to its
                                                                                wording. An important criterion for the correct exer-
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                      cise of discretion and the review thereof by the court is
                                                                                the legal and technical practicability of the claim to
                                                                                access to documents vis-à-vis the author. However the
1. Set aside paragraphs 2 and 3 of the operative part of the
                                                                                Court has accepted that in applying the authorship
    judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-92/98,
                                                                                rule the Commission may act of its own motion and
    Interporc Im- und Export GmbH v Commission.
                                                                                has an unlimited discretion in deciding whether to
                                                                                disclose documents produced by third parties.
2. Declare the decision of the Secretary-General of the
    Commission of 23 April 1998 void in its entirety.
3. Order the Commission to pay the costs of the appeal and
    the costs of the case at first instance.