               29.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 271/18

         Removal from the register of Case C-425/04 (1)

   (2005/C 271/35)

      Language of the case: Italian

   By order of 6 June 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-425/04: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.

      (1)  OJ C 300 of 04.12.2004.


title: Case C-77/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Graz (Austria), lodged on 15 February 2008 — Dachsberger & Söhne GmbH v Zollamt Salzburg, Erstattungen

text:
               24.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 128/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Graz (Austria), lodged on 15 February 2008 — Dachsberger & Söhne GmbH v Zollamt Salzburg, Erstattungen
   (Case C-77/08)
   (2008/C 128/33)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Graz
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Dachsberger & Söhne GmbH

      Respondent: Zollamt Salzburg, Erstattungen
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is the second sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 11(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2945/94 of 2 December 1994 (1), which provides that, for the calculation of the requested refund in the case of a differentiated refund, ‘the differentiated part of the refund shall be calculated using the particulars of quantity, weight and destination provided pursuant to Article 47’, to be interpreted as meaning that the expression ‘particulars of quantity, weight and destination provided pursuant to Article 47’ refers to the particulars in the specific application made pursuant to Article 47(1), with the result that the differentiated part of the refund is requested only at the time of presentation of the application within the meaning of Article 47(1)?

               2.

               If the reply to the first question is in the affirmative, the question arises as to whether, if the request for payment pursuant to Article 47(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 is already to be submitted ‘in the document used for export to enable products to qualify for a refund’ (here, the export declaration), the abovementioned provision is to be interpreted as meaning that the calculation of the refund requested in relation to the differentiated part is to be made using the particulars in the export declaration, with the result that the differentiated part of the refund is requested also with the export declaration?

               3.

               If the reply to the first question is in the negative, the question arises as to whether the abovementioned provision is to be interpreted as meaning that the calculation of the refund requested in relation to the differentiated part is to be made using the documents to be presented in accordance with Article 47 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987, with the result that the differentiated part of the refund is requested only at the time of presentation of the ‘documents relating to payment’ within the meaning of Article 47(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987?

               4.

               If the reply to the third question is in the affirmative, the question arises as to whether the abovementioned provision is to be interpreted as meaning that, for the purpose of requesting the differentiated part of the refund, the presentation even of such documents within the meaning of Article 47(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 which are defective is sufficient, with the consequence in law that the sanction provision of Article 11 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 is applicable also in relation to the differentiated part of the refund?

      (1)  OJ 1994 L 310, p. 57.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 29 September 1997 in Case T-4/97: Roberto D'Orazio and Pierre Hublau v. Commission of the European Communities (State aid - Aid to the steel sector - Application for annulment - Article 33 of the ECSC Treaty - Inadmissibility)

text:
C 370/6                 I EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      6 . 12 . 97
Criminal District Court, Venice ), First Chamber, which                          Italian State, as having direct effect in favour of
was received at the Court Registry on 27 October 1997,                           trainee specialist doctors, in the sense of conferring on
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Cinzia Gozza and                         them an unrestricted right, as against the competent
Others v. ( 1 ) Università degli Studi di Padova;                                authorities of the State, to receive appropriate
( 2 ) Ministero dell'Università e della Ricerca Scientifica e                    remuneration corresponding to the work performed in
Tecnologica ; ( 3 ) Ministero della Sanità ; and ( 4 ) Ministero               • the course of their professional training ?
della Pubblica Istruzione, on the following questions:
                                                                           2 . If the existence of the aforementioned right is
                                                                                recognized, what are the criteria for determining
1 . Does the provision in Directive 82/76/EEC (') under                          ' appropriate remuneration' with regard to both full
      which both full-time and part-time training of medical                     time and part-time training activities ?
      specialists ' shall be subject to appropriate
      remuneration' fall to be construed, even for the period              (') Council Directive of 26 January 1982 , OJ L 43 , 15 . 2 . 1982 ,
      during which no specific rules were adopted by the                        p. 21 .
                                                          COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                         of 29 September 1997                                                      of 29 September 1997
in Case T-4/97: Roberto D'Orazio and Pierre Hublau v.                      in Case T-70/97: Region of Wallonia v. Commission of
         Commission of the European Communities (')                                          the European Communities ( 1 )
 (State aid — Aid to the steel sector — Application for                    (State aid — Aid to the steel sector — Application for
annulment — Article 33 of the ECSC Treaty —                                annulment — Article 33 of the ECSC Treaty —
                              Inadmissibility)                                                         Inadmissibility)
                               ( 97/C 370/ 14                                                           ( 97/C 370/ 15 )
                   (Language of the case: French)                                            (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-4/97: Roberto D'Orazio and Pierre Hublau,                        In Case T-70/97: Region of Wallonia , represented by Jean
residing in Clabecq and Tubize ( Belgium ) respectively,                   Marie de Backer, Olivier Ralet and Georges
represented by Patrice Bonbled, Caroline Sokolowitch and                   Vandersanden, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
 Olivier Gemberling, of the Brussels Bar, 239/4 Rue Gatti                  service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
de Gamond, Brussels, against Commission of the                             Sari , 30 Rue de Cessange, against Commission of the
 European Communities ( Agent: Gerard Rozet ) —                            European Communities ( Agent: Gerard Rozet ) —
application for annulment of Commission Decision 97/                       application for annulment of Commission Decision 97/
271 /ECSC of 18 December 1996 on financial assistance                      271 /ECSC of 18 December 1996 on financial assistance
granted by the Region of Wallonia to the steel undertaking                 granted by the Region of Wallonia to the steel undertaking
 Forges de Clabecq ( OJ L 106 , 24 . 4 . 1997, p. 30 ) — the               Forges de Clabecq ( OJ L 106 , 24 . 4. 1997, p. 30 ) — the
 Court     of   First     Instance     ( First Chamber,     Extended       Court of First Instance ( First Chamber, Extended
 Composition ), composed of A. Saggio, President, A.                       Composition ), composed of A. Saggio, President, A.
 Kalogeropoulos, V. Tiili, R. M. Moura Ramos and K. J.                     Kalogeropoulos, V. Tiili , R. M. Moura Ramos and K. J.
 Pirrung, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar^ has made an order on                 Pirrung, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on
 29 September 1997, the operative part of which is as                      29 September 1997, the operative part of which is as
 follows :                                                                 follows :
 1 . the application is dismissed as inadmissible;                          1 . the application is dismissed as inadmissible;
 2 . the applicant is ordered to pay the costs.                             2 . The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
 (') OJ C 74 , 8 . 3 . 1997 .                                               (') OJ C 181 , 14 . 6 . 1997 .


title: Case C-149/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 20 March 2006 — Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze and Agenzia delle Entrate v Porto Antico di Genova SPA

text:
               16.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 310/1

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 20 March 2006 — Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze and Agenzia delle Entrate v Porto Antico di Genova SPA
   (Case C-149/06)
   (2006/C 310/01)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   The Corte Suprema di Cassazione
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze and Agenzia delle Entrate

      Respondant: Porto Antico di Genova SPA
   Questions referred

               1.

               Must the second sentence of Article 21(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88, as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2082/93 (1), under which payments of funds to final beneficiaries are to be made without any deduction or retention which could reduce the final amount of financial assistance to which they are entitled, be interpreted as meaning that such funds cannot be taken into account even for the purposes of determining income tax or any other tax subsequently owing by the beneficiaries under national tax legislation?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is 'yes': does that exemption scheme apply solely to the part of the funds payable by Community bodies or also to the part granted, in the course of the same development programme, by national, regional or local authorities?

      (1)  OJ L 193, p. 20.


title: Case C-439/06: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 May 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Dresden, Germany) — Energy management proceedings between citiworks AG (Intervening party: Sächsisches Staatsministerium für Wirtschaft und Arbeit als Landesregulierungsbehörde), on the one hand, and Flughafen Leipzig/Halle GmbH and Bundesnetzagentur, on the other (Internal market in electricity — Directive 2003/54/EC — Article 20(1) — Open access of third parties to electricity transmission and distribution systems)

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/6

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 May 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Dresden, Germany) — Energy management proceedings between citiworks AG (Intervening party: Sächsisches Staatsministerium für Wirtschaft und Arbeit als Landesregulierungsbehörde), on the one hand, and Flughafen Leipzig/Halle GmbH and Bundesnetzagentur, on the other
   (Case C-439/06) (1)

   (Internal market in electricity - Directive 2003/54/EC - Article 20(1) - Open access of third parties to electricity transmission and distribution systems)
   (2008/C 171/10)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Oberlandesgericht Dresden
   Applicant in the energy management proceedings
   citiworks AG

      Interveners in the energy management proceedings in support of the applicant: Sächsisches Staatsministerium für Wirtschaft und Arbeit als Landesregulierungsbehörde,
   Defendants in the energy management proceedings: Flughafen Leipzig/Halle GmbH, Bundesnetzagentur
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Dresden — Interpretation of Article 20(1) of Directive 2003/54/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 96/92/EC (OJ 2003 L 176, p. 37) — National legislation which excludes networks wholly situated on the premises of an undertaking (Betriebsnetze) from the principle of free access of third persons to electricity transport and distribution networks
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 20(1) of Directive 2003/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 96/92/EC must be interpreted as precluding a provision such as the first point of Paragraph 110(1) of the Law on electricity and gas supply, referred to as ‘the Law on energy management’ (Gesetz über die Elektrizitäts- und Gasversorgung (Energiewirtschaftsgesetz)) of 7 July 2005, which exempts certain operators of energy supply systems from the obligation to provide third parties with open access to those systems on the grounds that they are located on a geographically connected operation zone and that they predominantly serve to supply the energy needs of the undertaking itself and of connected undertakings.

      (1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.


title: Case T-51/15: Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2016 –PAN Europe v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 — Documents relating to endocrine-disrupting chemicals — Partial refusal of access — Exception relating to the decision-making process — Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001)

text:
               31.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/40

         Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2016 –PAN Europe v Commission
   (Case T-51/15) (1)

   ((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Documents relating to endocrine-disrupting chemicals - Partial refusal of access - Exception relating to the decision-making process - Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001))
   (2016/C 402/45)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: B. Kloostra, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Buchet, P. Mihaylova and J. Tomkin, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk, C. Meyer-Seitz, U. Persson, N. Otte Widgren, E. Karlsson and L. Swedenborg, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the Commission’s Decision of 24 November 2014, under the reference Ares (2014) 3900631, in so far as it refuses access to documents relating to endocrine-disrupting chemicals.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 24 November 2014, under the reference Ares (2014) 3900631, in so far as it refuses access to the documents designated under numbers 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 17a, 20, 22, 24, 25, 29, 30, 31, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42 and 43, on the basis of the first subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the Commission, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay those incurred by Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe);

               4.

               Declares that the Kingdom of Sweden is to pay its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 13.4.2015.


title: Case C-435/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad Der Nederlanden by order of that court of  2 December 2005  in Investrand B.V. v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

text:
               25.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 74/2

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad Der Nederlanden by order of that court of 2 December 2005 in Investrand B.V. v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-435/05)
   (2006/C 74/04)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Hoge Raad Der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of 2 December 2005, received at the Court Registry on 5 December 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Investrand B.V. and Staatssecretaris van Financiën on the following question:

               In the context of the right of deduction granted in Article 17(2) of the Sixth Directive (1), must it be held that there is a direct and immediate link between specific services obtained by a taxable person and taxable transactions yet to be performed by that same taxable person in a case where those services have been obtained with a view to establishing a monetary claim that forms part of his assets but which arose in a period preceding that in which he was liable for VAT?

      (1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment OJ 1977 L 145, p. l


C 21/30               EN                     Official Journal of the European Union                                   24.1.2004
       Removal from the register of Case C-308/02 (1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-461/02 (1)
                        (2004/C 21/58)                                                       (2004/C 21/61)
By order of 30 September 2003 the President of the Court of          By order of 17 September 2003 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal              Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-308/02: Commission of the                from the register of Case C-461/02: Commission of the
European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.                    European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
(1) OJ C 247 of 12.10.2002.                                          (1) OJ C 44 of 22.2.2003.
       Removal from the register of Case C-342/02 (1)
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-48/03 (1)
                        (2004/C 21/59)
                                                                                (2004/C 21/62)
By order of 17 September 2003 the President of the First
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities          By order of 26 September 2003 the President of the Court of
ordered the removal from the register of Case C-342/02:              Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.            from the register of Case C-48/03: Commission of the
                                                                     European Communities v Portuguese Republic.
(1) OJ C 261 of 26.10.2002.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 70 of 22.3.2003.
       Removal from the register of Case C-370/02 (1)
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-190/03 (1)
                        (2004/C 21/60)
                                                                                (2004/C 21/63)
By order of 16 September 2003 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-370/02: Commission of the                By order of 29 September 2003 the President of the Court of
European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.                           Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                     from the register of Case C-190/03: Portuguese Republic v
                                                                     Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 305 of 7.12.2002.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 184 of 2.8.2003.


title: Case T-291/09: Action brought on 27 July 2009 — Carrols v OHIM — Gambettola (Pollo Tropical CHICKEN ON THE GRILL)

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/42

         Action brought on 27 July 2009 — Carrols v OHIM — Gambettola (Pollo Tropical CHICKEN ON THE GRILL)
   (Case T-291/09)
   2009/C 220/87
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Carrols Corp. (New York, United States) (represented by: I. Temiño Ceniceros, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Giulio Gambettola (Los Realejos, Spain)

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare the present action and its annexes admissible;

               —

               annul the decision of the Board of Appeal in so far as it relates to the grounds for invalidity under Article 52(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘Pollo Tropical CHICKEN ON THE GRILL’ (Application No. 002938801) for goods and services in Classes 25, 41 and 43.

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Giulio Gambettola.

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: The applicant.

      Trade mark right of applicant for the declaration: National figurative mark (No 2 201 552) containing the word element ‘Pollo Tropical CHICKEN ON THE GRILL’ and the national word mark ‘POLLO TROPICAL’ (No 2 201 543) for services in Class 43 (‘restaurant services’).

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application for a declaration of invalidity dismissed.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

      Pleas in law: Misinterpretation of Articles 52(1)(b) and 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark.


title: Case C-223/02: Action brought on 17 June 2002 by the Republic of Finland against the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union

text:
C 202/10               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       24.8.2002
Action brought on 17 June 2002 by the Republic of                       Under the third paragraph of Article 5 EC, action by the
Finland against the European Parliament and the Council                 Community is not to go beyond what is necessary to achieve
                     of the European Union                              the objectives of the Treaty.
                         (Case C-223/02)                                According to settled case-law of the Court of Justice, the
                                                                        principle of proportionality requires that legislation, decisions
                         (2002/C 202/12)                                and other measures of the Community institutions must not
                                                                        exceed what is appropriate and necessary for attaining the
                                                                        objectives pursued. According to the Court of Justice, it is clear
                                                                        that where there is a choice between several appropriate
An action against the European Parliament and the Council of            measures, the least restrictive one must be chosen, and that
the European Union was brought before the Court of Justice              the disadvantages caused by measures must not be too great
of the European Communities on 17 June 2002 by the                      in relation to the objectives pursued.
Republic of Finland, represented by T. Pynnä, acting as Agent,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                        Third plea in law: breach of the principle of
Finland claims that the Court should:                                   freedom to pursue an occupation
—     Annul Directive 2002/15/EC (1) of the European Parlia-
      ment and of the Council of 11 March 2002 on the                   Finland considers that by including self-employed drivers in
      organisation of the working time of persons performing            the scope of the directive the Parliament and the Council
      mobile road transport activities, in so far as it concerns        infringed the principle of the freedom to pursue an occupation.
      self-employed drivers;
                                                                        In the common constitutional tradition of the Member States
—     Order the Parliament and the Council to pay the costs.            it is regarded as an essential part of the freedom to pursue an
                                                                        occupation that an operator may decide for himself how long
                                                                        to work for the benefit of his undertaking and when to work.
                                                                        It is part of the basic nature of an undertaking that the operator
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         may invest his work as well as his capital in his undertaking.
                                                                        According to settled case-law of the Court of Justice, the
First plea in law: lack of competence                                   freedom to pursue an occupation is a general principle of
                                                                        Community law. Freedom to pursue an occupation is also
Finland considers that by including self-employed drivers in            recognised in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the
the scope of the directive the Parliament and the Council               European Union. Under Article 15(1) of the Charter everyone
exceeded their powers.                                                  has the right to engage in work and to pursue a freely chosen
                                                                        or accepted occupation.
Article 71 EC and Article 137(2) EC were used as legal basis
for the directive. In Finland’s opinion, the question of the legal      According to the case-law of the Court of Justice, the freedom
basis must be assessed separately according to the groups               to pursue an occupation may be restricted only on condition
concerned, with respect to mobile employees and self-                   that the restriction is in fact in accordance with Community
employed drivers. Different aims were in the background to              objectives in the public interest and does not mean a dispro-
the proposed legislation concerning the working time of self-           portionate and intolerable interference which would endanger
employed drivers and of mobile employees. In the Com-                   the very substance of the rights guaranteed.
mission’s original proposal the directive was based, according
to the first recital in the preamble, specifically on Article 71
EC with respect to self-employed drivers.
                                                                        Fourth plea in law: impeding the activity of
Finland considers that neither of the provisions of the Treaty          small and medium-sized undertakings
used as legal basis confers power on the Community to
legislate on the working time of self-employed persons.                 Finland considers that by including self-employed drivers in
                                                                        the scope of the directive the Parliament and the Council
                                                                        infringed Article 137(2) EC and Article 157 EC.
Second plea in law: breach of the principle
of proportionality
                                                                        Article 137(2) EC requires that directives adopted under that
                                                                        provision must avoid imposing administrative, financial and
Finland considers that by including self-employed drivers in            legal constraints in a way which would impede the activity of
the scope of the directive the Parliament and the Council               small and medium-sized undertakings. Article 157 EC for its
infringed the principle of proportionality under the third              part requires the Community to promote in its action the
paragraph of Article 5 EC.                                              operation of small and medium-sized undertakings.
 ---pagebreak--- 24.8.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 202/11
The restrictions in the directive in fact affect specifically small      income tax prepayment levied in the Member State in question,
and medium-sized undertakings. Restricting working time                  whereas the income tax which a debtor resident in another
would weaken the competitive position of those undertakings,             Member State is obliged to pay in his State of residence is not
since their situation differs from that of the owner of a large          taken into account as a deduction, so that the attachable part
undertaking. It follows from the division of work within a               is greater in the latter case in being determined on the basis of
large undertaking that the persons responsible for driving can           the gross and not the net amount of the pension?
use the whole time permitted by the directive for driving.
The management and development of the business are the
responsibility of different persons, whose working time the
provisions of the directive do not restrict in any way.
Fifth plea in law: failure to comply with the
duty to state reasons                                                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
                                                                         Gela — Ufficio del Giudice per le Indagini Preliminari by
Finland considers that by including self-employed drivers in             order of that Court of 19 June 2002 in criminal proceed-
the scope of the directive the Parliament and the Council                  ings against Marco Antonio Saetti and Andrea Frediani
infringed Article 253 EC.
                                                                                (Case C-235/02)
According to settled case-law of the Court of Justice, the
obligation to state reasons under Article 253 EC is determined
by the nature of the legislation, decision or other measure. The                                  (2002/C 202/14)
statement of reasons must disclose clearly and unambiguously
the reasoning of the Community institution which has adopted
the measure, so that the reasons for the measure are clear to
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
those concerned by it and the Community court can perform
                                                                         European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Gela —
its function of review.
                                                                         Ufficio del Giudice per le Indagini Preliminari (Gela District
                                                                         Court, Chambers of the Judge in charge of Preliminary
Finland considers that those requirements are not satisfied in           Inquiries) of 19 June 2002, received at the Court Registry on
so far as the directive concerns self-employed drivers.                  26 June 2002, for a preliminary ruling in criminal proceedings
                                                                         against Marco Antonio Saetti and Andrea Frediani on the
(1) OJ L 80 of 23.3.2002, p. 35.                                         following questions:
                                                                         1.    Does pet coke fall within the definition of ‘waste’ as
                                                                               provided in Article 1 of Directive 75/442/EEC? (1)
                                                                         2.    Does use of pet coke as a fuel constitute ‘recovery’ within
                                                                               the meaning of Article 1 of Directive 75/442/EEC?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Korkein Oikeus                 3.    Does pet coke, when used as a fuel for production
by order of that Court of 14.06.2002 in the case of                            purposes, come within the category of waste which a
Heikki Antero Pusa against Osuuspankkien Keskinäinen                           Member State may exclude from the application of the
                          Vakuutusyhtiö                                        Community, following the adoption of specific rules in
                                                                               accordance with Article 2 of Directive 75/442/EEC?
                         (Case C-224/02)
                                                                         4.    Does permitting the use of petroleum coke at the place
                         (2002/C 202/13)                                       of production even for combustion processes intended
                                                                               for the generation of electric or thermal energy for
                                                                               purposes unconnected with refining processes, subject to
                                                                               the condition that emissions must be within the limits
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         laid down in the relevant provisions, even where its
European Communities by order of the Korkein Oikeus                            sulphur content exceeds 3 % of mass, constitute a
(Supreme Court) of 14.6.2002, received at the Court Registry                   necessary and sufficient measure to ensure that such
on 17.6.2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Heikki                   waste is recovered without endangering human health
Antero Pusa against Osuuspankkien Keskinäinen Vakuutus-                        and without the use of processes or methods likely harm
yhtiö on the following question:                                               the environment, in accordance with Article 4 of Directive
                                                                               75/442/EEC?
Does Article 18 of the EC Treaty or any other rule of
Community law preclude national legislation under which, in
an attachment carried out for the purpose of enforcing a                 (1) OJ L 194 of 25.7.1975, p. 39.
judgment concerning a money debt, that part of the pension
payable at regular intervals to the debtor which the attachment
may concern is determined by deducting from the pension the


title: Case C-407/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 6 July 2017 — Green Network SpA v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato and Others

text:
               9.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 338/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 6 July 2017 — Green Network SpA v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato and Others
   (Case C-407/17)
   (2017/C 338/06)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Green Network SpA

      Defendants: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato, Autorità per l’Energia Elettrica il Gas e il Sistema Idirco, Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the ‘rationale’ of ‘general’ Directive No 2005/29/EC, (1) namely that of providing a ‘safety net’ for consumer protection, and, in particular, recital 10, Article 3(4) and Article 5(3) of the directive preclude a national measure which brings within the scope of general Directive 2005/29/EC on improper commercial practices the evaluation of performance of the specific obligations laid down by sectoral Directives 2009/72/EC (2) and 2009/73/EC (3) for consumer protection, thereby excluding action by the sectoral authority — in this case the AEEGSI — to penalise infringements of the sectoral directive in all cases in which the prerequisites establishing an improper or unfair commercial practice may also be satisfied?

               2.

               Must the speciality principle established by Article 3(4) of Directive 2005/29/EC be construed as governing relations between legislative systems (general systems and sectoral systems), or relations between provisions (general provisions and special provisions) or relations between independent authorities responsible for regulating and monitoring the relevant sectors?

               3.

               Can the concept of ‘conflict’ in Article 3(4) of Directive 2005/29/EC be regarded as applicable only in circumstances in which there is a radical contradiction in law between the provisions of the legislation on improper commercial practices and the other provisions derived from EU law that govern specific aspects of commercial practices, or is it sufficient that the latter provisions lay down rules that differ from the provisions on improper commercial practices, such as to give rise to a conflict of laws in a specific case?

               4.

               Does the term ‘Community rules’ in Article 3(4) of Directive 2005/29/EC relate solely to the provisions contained in European regulations and directives and to the provisions directly transposing them, or does it also encompass the legislative and regulatory provisions implementing principles of EU law?

               5.

               Does the ‘speciality’ principle established in recital 10 and Article 3(4) of Directive 2005/29/EC, and Article 37 of Directive 2009/72/EC and Article 41 of Directive 2009/73/EC as well, preclude an interpretation of the corresponding national transposing provisions to the effect that, whenever, in a regulated sector containing sectoral ‘consumer’ rules, in which the sectoral authority is empowered to regulate and impose penalties, conduct that could be covered by the term ‘aggressive practice’ within the meaning of Articles 8 and 9 of Directive 2005/29/EC, or the term ‘in all circumstances considered aggressive’ within the meaning of Annex I to Directive 2005/29/EC, is identified, the general rules on improper practices must always apply, even where there are sectoral rules adopted to protect (such) consumers and based on provisions of EU law that fully regulate those same ‘aggressive practices’ and practices ‘in all circumstances considered aggressive’ or, at any rate, those same ‘improper/unfair practices’?

      (1)  Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2006 concerning unfair business — to — consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘unfair commercial practices directives’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).

      (2)  Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55).

      (3)  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 (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 94).


title: Case F-76/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 15 February 2011 AH v Commission (Civil service — Social security — Articles 72 and 76a of the Staff Regulations — General Implementing Provisions — Reliance on care — Surviving spouse of a retired official — Rejection of the request for reimbursement in full of nursing attendance costs and for financial assistance — Action out of time — Inadmissibility)

text:
               26.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/13

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 15 February 2011 AH v Commission
   (Case F-76/09) (1)

   (Civil service - Social security - Articles 72 and 76a of the Staff Regulations - General Implementing Provisions - Reliance on care - Surviving spouse of a retired official - Rejection of the request for reimbursement in full of nursing attendance costs and for financial assistance - Action out of time - Inadmissibility)
   2011/C 95/19
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: AH (Wavre, Belgium) (represented by: J. Temple Lang, solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Martin and J. Baquero Cruz, agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision of 22 June 2009 rejecting the applicant’s request for reimbursement in full of the costs resulting from the treatment of her illness.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               dismisses the action as inadmissible;

               2.

               orders AH to pay all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 297, 05.12.09, p. 36.


title: Case T-303/16: Action brought on 14 June 2016 — Novartis Europharm v Commission

text:
               16.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/24

         Action brought on 14 June 2016 — Novartis Europharm v Commission
   (Case T-303/16)
   (2016/C 296/33)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Novartis Europharm Ltd (Camberley, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Schoonderbeek, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Decision by the European Commission of 4 April 2016 (C(2016) 2083(final)); and

               —

               order the European Commission to pay its own costs and those of Novartis.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s Decision of 4 April 2016 is unlawful in that it constitutes an infringement of the orphan market exclusivity rights of Novartis for its product TOBI Podhaler pursuant to Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 (1) on orphan medicinal products and because the conditions in Article 8(3) of that regulation for granting a derogation from these orphan market exclusivity rights have not been fulfilled.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s Decision of 4 April 2016 has been prepared and adopted in violation of the ‘Duty of Care’ also known as the ‘Principle of Diligence’, specifically because of a failure to take into account all relevant scientific data about the medicinal products concerned, and because of a failure to consult Novartis as an interested party in the scientific assessment.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1999 on orphan medicinal products (OJ L 18, 22.1.2000, p. 1)


title: Case C-217/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Gdańsku (Republic of Poland), lodged on 11 May 2011 — Forta Sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Celnej w Gdyni

text:
               23.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 219/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Gdańsku (Republic of Poland), lodged on 11 May 2011 — Forta Sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Celnej w Gdyni
   (Case C-217/11)
   2011/C 219/09
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Gdańsku

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Forta Sp. z o.o.

      Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Celnej w Gdyni

      Question referred

   Must Article 1(11) of Directive 98/34/EC of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (1) and of rules on Information Society services be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘technical regulation’, the draft of which must be communicated to the Commission pursuant to Article 8(1) of that directive, includes a legislative measure which prohibits the issuing of authorisations to carry on an activity involving gaming on low-value-prize machines?

      (1)  Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (OJ 1998 L 204, p. 37), as amended by Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998 amending Directive 98/34/EC laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (OJ 1998 L 217, p. 18).


title: Action brought on 11 September 1998 by Commission of the European Communities against Italian Republic (Case C-335/98)

text:
C 327/16              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                     24.10.98
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            provisions laid down by law, regulation or
                                                                       administrative action necessary to comply with
                                                                       Directive 94/47/EC (1) of the European Parliament and
Ð declare that, by failing to adopt or, in any event,                  the Council of 26 October 1994 on the protection of
    by failing to communicate to the Commission                        purchasers in respect of certain aspects of contracts
    the provisions laid down by law, regulation or                     relating to the purchase of the right to use immovable
    administrative action necessary to comply with                     properties on a timeshare basis, the Italian Republic
                                                                       has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
    Ð Commission Directive 95/12/EC of 23 May 1995
         implementing Council Directive 92/75/EEC with
         regard to energy labelling of household washing           Ð order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
         machines (1),
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    Ð Commission Directive 95/13/EC of 23 May 1995
         implementing Council Directive 92/75/EEC with
         regard to energy labelling of household electric          Article 189 of the EC Treaty, in accordance with which a
         tumble driers (2),                                        directive is binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
                                                                   each Member State to which it is addressed, obliges
                                                                   Member States to respect the time-limits for
    the Italian Republic has failed to fulfill its obligations
                                                                   implementation prescribed by directives. When the time-
    under those directives;
                                                                   limit expired on 30 April 1997 the Italian Republic had
                                                                   not adopted the provisions necessary to comply with the
Ð order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                     directive referred to in the forms of order sought by the
                                                                   Commission.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                   (1) OJ L 280, 29.10.1994, p. 83.
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, in accordance with which
a directive is binding, as to the result to be achieved,
upon each Member State to which it is addressed,
obliges Member States to respect the time-limits
for implementation prescribed by directives. When the
time-limit expired on 1 March 1996 the Italian Republic            Action brought on 22 September 1998 by the Commission
had not adopted the provisions necessary to comply with                   of the European Communities against Ireland
the directives referred to in the forms of order sought by                                (Case C-345/98)
the Commission.
                                                                                (98/C 327/26)
(1) OJ L 136, 21.6.1995, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 136, 21.6.1995, p. 28.
                                                                   An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
                                                                   Justice of the European Communities on 22 September
                                                                   1998 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                   represented by Hans Christian Stùvlbaek, a member of its
                                                                   Legal Service, and Michael Shotter, a national official
                                                                   seconded to the Commission under an arrangement for the
Action brought on 11 September 1998 by Commission of               exchange of officials, acting as agents, with an address for
    the European Communities against Italian Republic              service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
                       (Case C-335/98)                             Cruz, a member of the Legal Service of the Commission,
                                                                   Centre Wagner.
                         (98/C 327/25)
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
An action against Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                   Ð declare that by failing to adopt and publish the laws,
11 September 1998 by Commission of the European
                                                                       regulations or administrative provisions necessary to
Communities, represented by Paolo Stancanelli, of its
                                                                       comply with Directive 94/9/EC (1) of the European
Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service
                                                                       Parliament and Council, of 23 March 1994, on the
in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
                                                                       approximation of the laws of the Member States
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                       concerning equipment and protective systems intended
                                                                       for use in potentially explosive atmospheres, Ireland
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive,
                                                                       and
Ð declare that, by failing to adopt or, in any event, by
    failing to communicate to the Commission the                   Ð order Ireland to pay the costs.


title: Case C-352/05: Order of the President of the Court of  5 May 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               29.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/29

         Order of the President of the Court of 5 May 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-352/05) (1)

   (2006/C 178/52)

      Language of the case: Greek

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

      (1)  OJ C 281, 12.11.2005.


title: Case T-51/08 P: Appeal brought on 5 February 2008 by Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 22 November 2007 in Case F-109/06, Dittert v Commission

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/37

         Appeal brought on 5 February 2008 by Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 22 November 2007 in Case F-109/06, Dittert v Commission

   (Case T-51/08 P)
   (2008/C 92/75)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by G. Berscheid and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Daniel Dittert (Luxembourg, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg)
   Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               Annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 22 November 2007 in Case F-109/06 Dittert v Commission and refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;

               —

               order the respondent to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the present appeal, the Commission seeks annulment of the judgment of 22 November 2007 in Case F-109/06 Dittert v Commission, by which the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) annulled its decision allocating to the applicant at first instance a number of priority points insufficient for him to be promoted in promotion year 2005 and its decision finalising the list of officials promoted during that promotion year inasmuch as it does not include the applicant's name.
   In support of its appeal, the Commission raises three pleas in law seeking annulment.
   Firstly, the Commission submits that the CST wrongly applied Article 45 of the Staff Regulations in that it attributed excessive importance to the involvement of the Director General in the procedure for allocating points, thus restricting unduly the discretion of the Appointing Authority following the finding that the lack of such involvement constituted a substantial procedural error.
   Secondly, the Commission submits that the CST infringed the jurisdiction of the Appointing Authority in breach of Article 45 of the Regulations and exceeded its powers of judicial control by addressing an instruction to the Appointing Authority.
   Thirdly, the Commission alleges that the CST failed to give sufficient reasons for the finding that the allocation to the applicant at first instance of a certain number of priority points by the Promotion Committee did not constitute an adequate remedy for the procedural error classified by the Tribunal as ‘substantial’ consisting in the lack of involvement of the Director General. Moreover, it claims that the CST based the contested judgment on a distortion of the contents of minutes of a meeting of the Promotion Committee.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 18 September 1996 in Case T-22/96: J. Langdon Ltd v. Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment - Contested decision revoked in the course of proceedings - No need to give a decision)

text:
No C 336/28             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   9 . 11 . 96
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 34 Rue                      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Philippe II v. Commission of the European Communities                                        of 18 September 1996
(Agents, during the written procedure, Bernd Langeheine
and Richard Lyal and, at the hearing, Richard Lyal, Paul              in Case T-22/96 : J. Langdon Ltd v. Commission of the
Nemitz and Berend Jan Drijber ); T-26/93 , Deutsche                                        European Communities (')
Afrika-Linien GmbH & Co ., established at Hamburg                     (Action for annulment — Contested decision revoked in the
( Germany ), represented by Michael Strobel , Rechtsanwalt,                course of proceedings — No need to give a decision)
Hamburg, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                                         ( 96/C 336/60 )
Chambers of Nicolas Decker, 16 Avenue Marie-Therese v.
Commission of the European Communities ( Agents, during
the written procedure , Bernd Langeheine and Richard Lyal                               (Language of the case: English)
and, at the hearing, Richard Lyal , Paul Nemitz and Berend
Jan Drijber ) and Case T-28/93 Nedlloyd Lijnen BV,                    In Case T-22/96 : J. Langdon Ltd, established in Dublin,
established at Rotterdam ( Netherlands ), represented,                represented by Patrick O'Brien , Solicitor, with an address
during the written procedure , by Tom R. Ottervanger, of the          for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Faltz &
Rotterdam Bar, and , at the hearing, by Jacques Steenbergen,          Associés, 6 Rue Heine, against Commission of the European
of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                   Communities ( Agents : Messrs Richard Wainwright and
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Carlos Zeyen, 4 Rue de                  Fernando Castillo de la Torre ) — application for the
l'Avenir v. Commission of the European Communities                    annulment of Commission Decision COM(95 ) 2726 of
(Agents, during the written procedure, Bernd Langeheine               3 November 1995 finding that it is justified to take action
and Richard Lyal and, at the hearing, Richard Lyal , Paul             for the post-clearance recovery of import duties and that the
Nemitz and Berend Jan Drijber ) — application for the                 remission of these duties is not justified — the Court of First
annulment        of   Commission     Decision   93 /82/EEC    of      Instance ( Second Chamber ), composed of: H. Kirschner,
23 December 1992 relating to a proceeding pursuant to                 President, C. W. Bellamy and A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges ; H.
Articles 85 ( IV/32.448 and IV/32.450 : Cewal, Cowac and              Jung, Registrar, made an order on 18 September 1996 , the
Ukwal ) and 86 ( IV/32.448 and IV/32.450 : Cewal ) of the             operative part of which is as follows :
EEC Treaty ( 2 ), the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities (Third Chamber, Extended Composition ),                    1 . there is no need to give a decision ;
composed of: C. P. Briët, President, P. Lindh, A. Potocki ,
R. M. Moura Ramos and J. D. Cooke, Judges, Registrar : J.             2 . the Commission shall bear its own costs and four fifths
Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, gave a judgment on                         of the applicant's costs.
 8 October 1996 , the operative part of which is as
follows :                                                              (') OJ No C 158 , 1 . 6 . 1996 .
 1 . Cases T-24/93 , T-25/93 , T-26/93 and T-28/93 are
       joined for the purposes of the judgment;
 2 . the applications for the annulment of Commission
       Decision 93/82/EEC of 23 December 1 992 relating to a
       proceeding pursuant to Articles 85 (IV/32.448 and                                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
       IV/32.450: Cewal, Cowac and Ukwal) and 86                                  OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
       (IV/32.448 and IV/32.450: Cewal) of the EEC Treaty                                    of 19 September 1996
       are dismissed;
                                                                       in Case T-138/96 R : Giovanni Ballone Burini v. Court of
 3 . the amount of the fines imposed by Article 6 of that                            Justice of the European Communities
       decision is fixed as follows:                                   (Officials — Competitions — Non-admission to a
                                                                       competition — Procedure for interim relief — Application
       — Compagnie Maritime Belge SA : ECU 8 640 000,
                                                                                for suspension of operation of a measure)
       — Dafra-Lines A/S: ECU 180 000,                                                             ( 96/C 336/61 )
       — Deutsche Afrika-Linien GmbH Sc Co.: ECU
           180 000,                                                                      (Language of the case: Italian)
       — Nedlloyd Lijnen BV: ECU 90 000;
                                                                       In Case T-138/96 R: Giovanni Ballone Burini, residing in
 4 . the applicants are ordered to pay all the defendant 's            Castelfidardo ( Italy ), represented during the written
       costs; in addition, the applicants in Case T-24/93              procedure by Giancarlo Piersimoni, of the Ancona Bar
        (Compagnie Beige SA and Compagnie Maritime Beige               ( Italy ), and during the oral procedure, by Carlo Revoldini,
        Transports SA) are ordered jointly and severally to pay        of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in
       all the costs of the interveners.                               Luxembourg at the address of Marco Pantanetti , 17 Rue de
                                                                       Dudelange, Kayl , against Court of Justice of the European
 (') OJ No C 122 , 4 . 5 . 1993 and                                    Communities ( Agents : Messrs Timothy Millett and Federico
       OJ No C 124 of 6 . 5 . 1993 .                                   Falcone ) — application for suspension of operation of the
 ( 2 ) OJ No L 34 , 1993 , p . 20 .                                    decision of the Selection Board for General Competition
                                                                        CJ/A/ 1 1 rejecting the applicant's candidature — the
                                                                       President of the Court of First Instance made an order on


C 55/22              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 20.2.98
survivor's pensions for workers provides as follows: A                 Removal from the register of Case C-169/97 (1)
worker who was employed as a worker during the period                                      (98/C 55/43)
between 1 January 1938 and 1 January 1945 and in
respect of whom a contribution was paid of an amount              By order of 18 September 1997 the President of the Court
equivalent to the annual amount referred to in                    of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
paragraph 2, is deemed to have paid sufficient                    removal from the register of Case C-169/97: Commission
contributions to establish that he was normally and               of the European Communities v. Portuguese Republic.
principally employed during the entire period comprised
between the date on which the period of employment                (1) OJ C 199, 28.6.1997.
established came to an end and 1 January 1946.'
Article 32b(6) of the aforesaid Royal Decree of
21 December 1967 provides as follows: The presumption
laid down in the two aforesaid paragraphs is rebuttable
only in respect of periods for which the person concerned               Removal from the register of Case C-193/96 (1)
can claim a pension under another Belgian scheme, with                                     (98/C 55/44)
the exception of the scheme for self-employed workers, or
under the scheme of a foreign country.'                           By order of 25 September 1997 the President of the Sixth
                                                                  Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European
Is a provision such as Article 32b(6) of the Royal Decree         Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
of 21 December 1967 a provision on reduction,                     Case C-193/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
suspension or withdrawal laid down by the legislation of a        the Verwaltungsgericht Köln): Richard Buchen GmbH v.
Member State, as referred to in Article 46b(2) of                 Bezirksregierung Köln.
Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, which does not apply to a
benefit calculated in accordance with Article 46(1)(a)(i)?        (1) OJ C 210, 20.7.1996.
      Removal from the register of Case C-322/96 (1)                    Removal from the register of Case C-205/97 (1)
                         (98/C 55/42)                                                      (98/C 55/45)
By order of 12 September 1997 the President of the Court          By order of 5 December 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the            of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-322/96 (reference for         removal from the register of Case C-205/97 (reference for
a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal                    a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal
Administrativo): ICT Ð InduÂstria e ComeÂrcio TeÃxtil SA v.       Administrativo (Supreme Administrative Court)): Fazenda
Fazenda PuÂblica.                                                 PuÂblica v. AssociacËaÄo Nacional de Transportes PuÂblicos
                                                                  RodoviaÂrios de Mercadorias (Antram) in the presence of
(1) OJ C 336, 9.11.1996.                                          MinisteÂrio PuÂblico.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 252, 16.8.1997.


title: Case T-348/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 April 2008 — SIDE v Commission (State aid — Export aid in the book sector — Failure to give prior notification — Article 87(3)(d) EC — Temporal scope of Community law — Method of calculating the amount of the aid)

text:
               24.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 128/31

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 April 2008 — SIDE v Commission
   (Case T-348/04) (1)

   (State aid - Export aid in the book sector - Failure to give prior notification - Article 87(3)(d) EC - Temporal scope of Community law - Method of calculating the amount of the aid)
   (2008/C 128/66)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Société internationale de diffusion and d'édition SA (SIDE) (Vitry-sur-Seine, France) (represented by: N. Coutrelis and V. Giacobbo, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne, Agent)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and S. Ramet initially and, subsequently, by G. de Bergues and A.-L. Vendrolini, Agents)
   Re:
   APPLICATION for annulment of the last sentence of Article 1 of Commission Decision 2005/262/EC of 20 April 2004 on the aid implemented by France in favour of the Coopérative d'exportation du livre français (CELF) (OJ 2005 L 85, p. 27).
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the last sentence of Article 1 of the Commission's Decision of 20 April 2004 on the aid implemented by France in favour of the Coopérative d'exportation du livre français (CELF).

               2.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and those of the Société internationale de diffusion et d'édition SA (SIDE).

               3.

               Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 262, 23.10.2004.


title: Case T-113/01: Action brought on 22 May 2001 by Verónica Sabbag against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
11.8.2001                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 227/27
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Action brought on 22 May 2001 by Verónica Sabbag
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-113/01)
In 1995 the Federal Republic of Germany gave notice of aid
for the privatisation of eight subsidiaries of the holding
                                                                                (2001/C 227/52)
company EFBE Verwaltungs GmbH, now Lintra Beteiligungs-
holding GmbH. By decision of 13 March 1996, communicated
by letter of 23 April 1996 (1), the Commission informed                                      (Language of the case: French)
Germany of its approval of aid for restructuring measures in
connection with the privatisation of Lintra Beteiligungsholding
GmbH.                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 22 May 2001 by Verónica Sabbag,
                                                                         residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis and
By the contested decision of 28 March 2001, the defendant                Véronique Peere, avocats, with an address for service in
has required Germany to reclaim aid totalling                            Luxembourg.
DEM 34 978 000 from Lintra Beteiligungsholding GmbH and
the Lintra subsidiaries. Aid amounting to DEM 3 195 559 is               The applicant claims that the Court should:
to be reclaimed from the applicant. The defendant asserts that           —     annul the decision of the Selection Committee in compe-
that aid has been used improperly and in breach of the                         tition COM/R/A/01/1999 to award the applicant a mark
statements in the approved restructuring plan. According to                    insufficient for her to be included on the reserve list;
the defendant, the aid granted has reportedly been used to pay
for services provided by Lintra Beteiligungsholding GmbH.                —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant submits that the contested decision is unlawful
and void in relation to it if only because it was not granted any        The applicant took part in competition COM/R/A/01/1999.
aid whatsoever in breach of the decision of 13 March 1996.               She is contesting her non-inclusion in the reserve list for the
                                                                         selection of temporary agents responsible for the management
                                                                         of technological research and development programmes.
According to the applicant, it is significant that the defendant         In support of her claim, the applicant alleges:
has not asserted that the applicant misused the restructuring
                                                                         —     infringement of the selection notice, of essential pro-
aid. The defendant has relied solely on presumptions in its
                                                                               cedural requirements and of the rules governing the
request for recovery. The applicant states that all the aid which
                                                                               functioning of selection boards, as well as a manifest
was received by it was used exclusively for restructuring
                                                                               error of assessment;
measures. Moreover, the amount to be reclaimed from it was
set totally arbitrarily.                                                 —     breach of the obligation to provide a statement of reasons;
                                                                         —     infringement of the principle of equal treatment;
                                                                         —     non-compliance with the obligation to have regard to the
Furthermore, all aid from the defendant or from Germany                        interests and welfare of officials and violation of the
went to Lintra Beteiligungsholding GmbH and was passed on                      principle of sound administration.
to its subsidiaries only indirectly. For that reason a notice for
recovery can be issued solely to the parent company.
The applicant is also of the view that no basis is apparent for
claiming that there is joint and several liability between Lintra
Beteiligungsholding GmbH and the subsidiaries. Such liability            Action brought on 23 May 2001 by Stefano Cocchi and
is presumably asserted by the defendant solely because the               Evi Hainz against the Commission of the European
parent company itself is insolvent.                                                                Communities
                                                                                (Case T-114/01)
(1) A summary was published at OJ No C 168, 12.6.1996, p. 10.                                     (2001/C 227/53)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the


title: Case C-235/08: Order of the President of the Court of 8 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Ried im Innkreis (Austria)) — Criminal proceedings against Roland Langer

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/37

         Order of the President of the Court of 8 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Ried im Innkreis (Austria)) — Criminal proceedings against Roland Langer
   (Case C-235/08) (1)

   ()
   2010/C 346/64
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 30.8.2008.


title: Case C-472/00 P: Appeal brought on 29 December 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment delivered on 24 October 2000 by the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-178/98 between Fresh Marine Company A/S and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
24.2.2001              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 61/5
Appeal brought on 27 December 2000 by Staff Com-                          of the ECB do not foresee a time-limit within which an action
mittee of the European Central Bank, established in                       should be brought. Thirdly, the Conditions of Employment of
Frankfurt am Main, Germany, Johannes Priesemann, mem-                     the ECB do not require internal procedures to be exhausted
ber of staff of the ECB, residing in Frankfurt am Main,                   prior to the bringing of an action. Lastly, this legal situation is,
Germany, Marc van de Velde, member of staff of the                        in the view of the Appellants, usual for a private law
ECB, residing in Usingen-Kransberg, Germany and Maria                     relationship of the type established by the Conditions of
Concetta Cerafogli, member of staff of the ECB, residing                  Employment of the ECB. There is no need to construct further
in Frankfurt am Main, Germany against the order made                      limitations for actions in the form of time-limits or internal
on 24 October 2000 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court                     procedures.
of First Instance of the European Communities in case
T-27/00 (1) between Staff Committee of the European
Central Bank, Johannes Priesemann, Marc van de Velde                      (1) OJ C 135, 13.5.2000, p. 13.
and Maria Concetta Cerafogli and European Central Bank
                        (Case C-467/00 P)
                          (2001/C 61/09)
                                                                          Appeal brought on 29 December 2000 by the Commission
An appeal against the order made on 24 October 2000 by the                of the European Communities against the judgment deliv-
Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European             ered on 24 October 2000 by the Third Chamber, Extended
Communities in case T-27/00 between Staff Committee of the                Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the Euro-
European Central Bank, Johannes Priesemann, Marc van de                   pean Communities in case T-178/98 (1) between Fresh
Velde and Maria Concetta Cerafogli and European Central                   Marine Company A/S and the Commission of the Euro-
Bank, was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                                    pean Communities
Communities on 27 December 2000 by Staff Committee of
the European Central Bank, Johannes Priesemann, Marc van                                          (Case C-472/00 P)
de Velde and Maria Concetta Cerafogli, represented by
N. Pflüger, R. Steiner and S. Mittländer, Rechtsanwalte, Frank-
                                                                                (2001/C 61/10)
furt am Main, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the office of A. Schiltz, Association Luxembourgeoise des
Employés de Banque et d’Assurance, 29 Avenue Monterey.                    An appeal against the judgment delivered on 24 October 2000
                                                                          by the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of
                                                                          First Instance of the European Communities in case T-178/98
The Appellants claim that:                                                between Fresh Marine A/S and the Commission of the
                                                                          European Communities, was brought before the Court of
1)    the order be annulled and the claims brought in the first           Justice of the European Communities on 29 December 2000
      instance be accepted as founded,                                    by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                          by Viktor Kreuschitz, Legal Adviser, and Sinéad Meany, a
      and if this claim cannot be accepted, demand that                   national civil servant on secondment to the Legal Service of
                                                                          the Commission, acting as agents, assisted by Nicholas Khan,
      the order be annulled in so far as the Court of First               Barrister, of the Bar of England and Wales, with an address for
      Instance dismissed the action as inadmissible and the case          service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
      be referred back to the Court of First Instance of the              Cruz, a member of the Legal Service, Centre Wagner.
      European Communities
                                                                          The Appellant claims that the Court should:
2)    the Respondent be ordered to pay the costs of the appeal
      and the action at the Court of First Instance of the                1.    set aside the judgment, dismiss the Application, and order
      European Communities.                                                     the Respondent to pay the costs, or alternatively,
                                                                          2.    set aside the judgment and refer the case back to the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 Court of First Instance.
The admissibility and timeliness of the action has to be judged
on the basis of Article 236 EC in conjunction with Article                Pleas in law and main arguments
36.2 of the Statute. Article 36.2 of the Statute, in turn, refers
to the conditions of employment. Hence, the application and               It is submitted that the judgment appealed is vitiated by a
interpretation of Article 42 of the Conditions of Employment              number of errors of law and should be set aside and the
of the ECB has to be the basis of the ruling. The Appellants              Application dismissed. It is submitted that the Court of First
hold the view that the Court of First Instance overlooked three           Instance erred in law in the following respects:
aspects of law in this respect: first, Article 42 of the Conditions
of Employment of the ECB provides for access to the Court of              —     In holding that the damage arose from the allegedly
Justice in the case of disputes over collective rights. Second, in              unlawful conduct of the Commission when it examined
the pursuit of collective rights the Conditions of Employment                   the October 1997 report.
 ---pagebreak--- C 61/6                  EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    24.2.2001
—    In holding that the jurisprudence characterising anti-             Does that requirement of the system of consumer protection
     dumping measures as legislative acts involving choices of          laid down by the directive that interpretation is to be in
     economic policy concerned cases ‘radically different’ from         conformity require a national court, when hearing an action
     the present case, and in thereby holding that a mere               for payment brought by a seller or supplier against a consumer
     infringement of Community law would suffice to give                with whom he has contracted, to set aside an exceptional
     rise to liability under Article 288 EC.                            procedural rule, such as that in Article L 311-37 of the
                                                                        Consumer Code, in so far as it prohibits the national court,
—    In holding that the October 1997 report prima facie                either on the application of the consumer or of its own
     suggested that the Respondent had complied with its                motion, from annulling any unfair clause which vitiates the
     undertaking and in holding therefore that;                         contract where the latter was made more than two years before
                                                                        the commencement of proceedings and in so far as it thereby
     a)     the Commission’s reaction in amending the report            permits the seller or supplier to rely in law on those clauses
            was disproportionate, and                                   and to base its action upon them?
     b)     the Commission had committed an error which                 (1) OJ L 95, 21.4.1993, p. 29.
            would not have been made had it exercised ordinary
            care and diligence.
—    In holding that the Respondent had shown reasonable
     diligence in mitigating the extent of the damage it had
     claimed to have suffered.                                          Appeal brought on 3 January 2001 by Asia Motor France
                                                                        SA, Jean-Michel Cesbron and Monin Automobiles SA
—    In holding that the Commission unjustifiably delayed in            against the judgment delivered on 26 October 2000 by
     adopting the necessary measures to restore the Respon-             the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
     dent’s undertaking and consequently holding that the               European Communities in Case T-154/98 between Asia
     Commission should bear full responsibility for the                 Motor France SA, Jean-Michel Cesbron and Monin Auto-
     Respondent’s loss of profit as from the end of January             mobiles SA and the Commission of the European Com-
     1998.                                                                                munities
                                                                                (Case C-1/01 P)
(1) OJ C 160, 5.6.1999, p. 21.
                                                                                (2001/C 61/12)
                                                                        An appeal against the judgment delivered on 26 October 2000
                                                                        by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities in Case T-154/98 between Asia Motor
                                                                        France SA, Jean-Michel Cesbron and Monin Automobiles SA
                                                                        and the Commission of the European Communities was
                                                                        brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal d’In-                ties on 3 January 2001 by Asia Motor France SA, Jean-Michel
stance, Vienne, by judgment of that court of 15 December                Cesbron and Monin Automobiles SA, represented by
2000, rectified by a judgment of 26 January 2001, in the                J-C. Fourgoux of the Brussels and Paris Bars, with an address
        case of Codifis SA against Jean Louis Fredout                   for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of P. Schiltz, 4 Rue
                                                                        Béatrix de Bourbon.
                         (Case C-473/00)                                The appellants claim that the Court should:
                                                                        —     set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
                          (2001/C 61/11)                                      26 October 2000(1);
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  —     annul the Commission’s decision of 14 July 1998, and
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal d’Instance             —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
(District Court), Vienne, of 15 December 2000, received at the
Court Registry on 27 December 2000, and rectified by a
judgment of 26 January 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the            Pleas in law and main arguments
case of Codifis SA v Jean Louis Fredout on the following
question:                                                               —     Infringement of fundamental rights: after dismissing the
                                                                              plea alleging breach of the requirement of a reasonable
                                                                              period [within which the administrative procedure must
Given that the protection under Council Directive 93/13/EEC                   be completed], necessary to ensure fair legal process,
of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (1)                     which constitutes a fundamental right, the Court of First
implies that a national court, applying provisions of national                Instance admitted that it was entitled to consider of its
law previous or subsequent to that directive, is to interpret                 own motion the question of infringement of essential
them so far as possible in the light of the wording and purpose               procedural requirements and of the procedural guarantees
of the latter;                                                                conferred by Community law, but decided not to do so.


title: Case C-12/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 8 January 2010 — LECSON Elektromobile GmbH v Hauptzollamt Dortmund

text:
               27.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 8 January 2010 — LECSON Elektromobile GmbH v Hauptzollamt Dortmund
   (Case C-12/10)
   2010/C 80/24
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: LECSON Elektromobile GmbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Dortmund

      Question referred

   Do the electric mobility scooters which are described more precisely in the order fall within heading 8713 or heading 8703 of the combined nomenclature, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1810/2004 of 7 September 2004 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff? (1)

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 327, p. 1.


title: Case F-15/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge Chamber) of 15 October 2014  — De Bruin v Parliament (Civil Service — Probationer — Article 34 of the Staff Regulations — Report on the probationary period — Extension of the probationary period — Dismissal at the end of the probationary period — Grounds for dismissal — Performance — Hasty performance of tasks — Manifest errors of assessment — Irregularities in the procedure — Period given to the Reports Committee to deliver its opinion)

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/53

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge Chamber) of 15 October 2014 — De Bruin v Parliament
   (Case F-15/14) (1)

   ((Civil Service - Probationer - Article 34 of the Staff Regulations - Report on the probationary period - Extension of the probationary period - Dismissal at the end of the probationary period - Grounds for dismissal - Performance - Hasty performance of tasks - Manifest errors of assessment - Irregularities in the procedure - Period given to the Reports Committee to deliver its opinion))
   2014/C 421/74
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Evert Anton De Bruin (Lent, Netherlands) (represented by: A. Salerno, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Dean and M. Ecker, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision of the Parliament to terminate the applicant’s employment contract at the end of the extension period of his probationary period.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr De Bruin to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament.

      (1)  OJ C 184, 16.6.2014, p. 40.