title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 July 2000 in Case C-210/98 P: Salzgitter AG v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Decision 3855/91/ECSC (Fifth Steel Aid Code) — Notification of planned aid after expiry of the prescribed period — Effects)

text:
25.11.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 335/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                         (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 13 July 2000
                           of 13 July 2000
                                                                             in Case C-210/98 P: Salzgitter AG v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
in Case C-243/97: Hellenic Republic v Commission of the
                   European Communities (1)
                                                                             (Appeal — Decision 3855/91/ECSC (Fifth Steel Aid Code)
                                                                             — Notification of planned aid after expiry of the prescribed
   (Clearance of EAGGF accounts — 1993 financial year)                                                period — Effects)
                                                                                (2000/C 335/02)
                          (2000/C 335/01)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                    (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                            In Case C-210/98 P: Salzgitter AG, formerly Preussag Stahl
                                                                             AG, established in Salzgitter (Germany), represented by
                                                                             J. Sedemund, Rechtsanwalt, Berlin, with an address for service
In Case C-243/97, Hellenic Republic (Agents: M.I. Chalkias and
                                                                             in Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. May, 398 Route d’Esch
E.-M. Mamouna) v Commission of the European Communities
                                                                             — appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance
(Agent: M. Condou-Durande), application for the partial annul-
                                                                             of the European Communities (Third Chamber, Extended
ment of Commission Decision 97/333/EC of 23 April 1997
                                                                             Composition) of 31 March 1998 in Case T-129/96 Preussag
on the clearance of the accounts presented by the Member
                                                                             Stahl v Commission [1998] ECR II-609, seeking to have that
States in respect of the expenditure for 1993 on the Guarantee
                                                                             judgment set aside, the other parties to the proceedings
Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee
                                                                             being: Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 1997 L 139, p. 30), in the part relating
                                                                             D. Triantafyllou and P. Nemitz) and Federal Republic of
to Greece — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
                                                                             Germany (Agent C.-D. Quassowski assisted by H. Wissel —
R. Schintgen, President of the Second Chamber, acting as
                                                                             the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.C. Moitinho de
President of the Sixth Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn, G. Hirsch
                                                                             Almeida, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissoch-
(Rapporteur), H. Ragnemalm and V. Skouris, Judges, P. Léger,
                                                                             et (Rapporteur), G. Hirsch and F. Macken, Judges; F.G. Jacobs,
Advocate General; L. Hewlet, Administrator, for the Registrar,
                                                                             Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the
has given a judgment on 13 July 2000, in which it:
                                                                             Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 July 2000, in which it:
1.    Dismisses the application;                                             1.    Dismisses the appeal;
2.    Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                         2.    Orders Salzgitter AG to pay the costs;
                                                                             3.    Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.
(1) OJ C 318 of 18.10.1997.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.


title: Case C-672/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Perpignan (France) lodged on 14 December 2015 — Procureur de la République v Noria Distribution SARL

text:
               7.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/8

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Perpignan (France) lodged on 14 December 2015 — Procureur de la République v Noria Distribution SARL
   (Case C-672/15)
   (2016/C 090/11)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de grande instance de Perpignan

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Prosecutor: Procureur de la République

      Defendant: Noria Distribution SARL

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do Directive 2002/46/EC (1) and Community principles of free movement of goods and of mutual recognition preclude the laying down of national legislation such as the order of 9 May 2006 which refuses any mutual recognition procedure so far as concerns food supplements based on vitamins and minerals from another Member State by excluding the application of a streamlined procedure in respect of products lawfully marketed in another Member State that are based on nutrients [whose values exceed the limits set] by the order of 9 May 2006?

               2.

               Does Directive 2002/46, in particular in Article 5, as well as the principles resulting from Community case-law on the provisions relating to the free movement of goods, permit the maximum daily doses of vitamins and minerals to be set in proportion to the recommended daily allowances by adopting a value equal to three times the recommended daily allowances for nutrients presenting the least risk, a value equal to the recommended daily allowances for nutrients presenting a risk of the upper safe level being exceeded and a value below the recommended daily allowances or even zero for nutrients involving the most risk?

               3.

               Does Directive 2002/46, as well as the principles resulting from Community case-law on the provisions relating to the free movement of goods, permit the doses to be set [in the light of] solely national scientific opinions even though recent international scientific opinions [conclude in favour of] higher doses in identical conditions of use?

      (1)  Directive 2002/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to food supplements (OJ 2002 L 183, p. 51).


title: Case C-502/11: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy)) — Vivaio dei Molini Azienda Agricola Porro Savoldi ss v Autorità per la Vigilanza sui Contratti Pullici di lavori, servizi e forniture (Public works contracts — Directive 93/37/EEC — Article 6 — Principles of equal treatment and openness — Admissibility of rules reserving the right to participate in public tendering procedures to companies engaged in a commercial activity and excluding civil partnerships (società semplici) — Institutional and statutory objectives — Agricultural undertakings)

text:
               12.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/22

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy)) — Vivaio dei Molini Azienda Agricola Porro Savoldi ss v Autorità per la Vigilanza sui Contratti Pullici di lavori, servizi e forniture
   (Case C-502/11) (1)

   (Public works contracts - Directive 93/37/EEC - Article 6 - Principles of equal treatment and openness - Admissibility of rules reserving the right to participate in public tendering procedures to companies engaged in a commercial activity and excluding civil partnerships (società semplici) - Institutional and statutory objectives - Agricultural undertakings)
   2013/C 9/36
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Vivaio dei Molini Azienda Agricola Porro Savoldi ss

      Defendant: Autorita per la Vigilanza sui Contratti Pullici di lavori, servizi e forniture

      in the presence of: SOA CQOP Costruttori Qualificati Opere Pubbliche SpA, Unione Provinciale Agricoltori di Brescia

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consiglio di Stato — Interpretation of Article 6 of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54) — Principle of non-discrimination — National legislation reserving the right to participate in public tendering procedures to companies engaged in a commercial activity and excluding agricultural undertakings in the form of civil partnerships (società semplici)

      Operative part of the order

   European Union law, in particular Article 6 of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, as amended by Commission Directive 2001/78/EC of 13 September 2001, precludes national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which prohibits an undertaking such as a civil partnership having the status of ‘contractor’ within the meaning of Directive 93/37 from participating in public procurement procedures solely on the ground of its legal form.

      (1)  OJ C 347, 26.11.2011.


title: Case C-495/11 P: Order of the Court of 13 September 2012 — Total SA, Elf Aquitaine SA v European Commission (Appeal — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Infringement of the principles of conferred powers and of proportionality — Manifestly incorrect interpretation — Infringement of the rights of the defence and of the principles of equity and of the equality of arms — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               6.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 101/2

         Order of the Court of 13 September 2012 — Total SA, Elf Aquitaine SA v European Commission
   (Case C-495/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Infringement of the principles of conferred powers and of proportionality - Manifestly incorrect interpretation - Infringement of the rights of the defence and of the principles of equity and of the equality of arms - Obligation to state reasons)
   2013/C 101/03
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellants: Total SA, Elf Aquitaine SA (represented by: E. Morgan de Rivery and A. Noël-Baron, avocats)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: B. Gencarelli, P. Van Nuffel and V. Bottka, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 14 July 2011 in Case T-190/06 Total and Elf Aquitaine v Commission by which that Court dismissed the action for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 1766 final of 3 May 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen peroxide and perborate) — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Infringement of the principles of conferred powers and of proportionality — Manifestly incorrect interpretation — Infringement of the rights of the defence and of the principles of equity and of the equality of arms — Obligation to state reasons

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Total SA and Elf Aquitaine SA shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 355, 3.12.2011.


title: Case C-498/11 P: Appeal brought on 27 September 2011 by Toshiba Corp. against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2011 in Case T-113/07: Toshiba Corp. v European Commission

text:
               26.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/18

         Appeal brought on 27 September 2011 by Toshiba Corp. against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2011 in Case T-113/07: Toshiba Corp. v European Commission
   (Case C-498/11 P)
   2011/C 347/28
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Toshiba Corp. (represented by: J.F. MacLennan, Solicitor, A. Schulz, Rechtsanwalt, A. Dawes, Solicitor, S. Sakellariou, Δικηγόρος)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal insofar as it rejected Toshiba's claim for annulment of Article 1 of the Decision, and annul the contested Decision;

               —

               in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for determination in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice as to points of law; and, in any event,

               —

               award Toshiba its costs, including its costs in the proceedings before the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant submits that the General Court committed several errors in law when it rejected its claim for annulment of Article 1 of the Decision:

               a)

               it erred in law in concluding that the witness statements furnished by ABB were capable of proving the existence of a common understanding;

               b)

               it erred in law in concluding that there was both corroborating evidence and indirect evidence of the existence of a common understanding;

               c)

               it erred in law in finding that Toshiba participated both in a single and in a continuous infringement; and

               d)

               it erred in law in finding that Toshiba's rights of defence were not breached by the nondisclosure of several exculpatory witness statements.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 March 2000 in Case C-265/97 P: Coöperatieve Vereniging De Verenigde Bloemenveilingen Aalsmeer BA (VBA) v Florimex BV and Others (Appeal — Competition — Decision rejecting a complaint — Compatibility with Article 2 of Regulation No 26 of a fee charged to external suppliers on floricultural products supplied to wholesalers established on the premises of a cooperative society of auctioneers — Statement of reasons)

text:
10.6.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 163/3
2. So long as it has not been withdrawn or declared invalid, an E          B.J. Drijber) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
    101 certificate, issued in accordance with Article 11a of Council      J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, President of the Sixth Chamber,
    Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972, fixing                    acting as President of the Fifth Chamber, L. Sevón,
    the procedure for implementing Regulation No 1408/71,                  J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and M. Wathelet, Judges;
    as amended and updated by Regulation No 2001/83 and                    A. Saggio, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for
    subsequently by Regulation No 3811/86, is binding both upon            the Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 March 2000, in
    the competent institution of the Member State to which a self-         which it:
    employed person goes in order to carry out a work assignment
    and the person who calls upon the services of that worker.             1. Dismisses the appeal;
3. The E 101 certificate, issued in accordance with Article 11a of         2. Orders Coöperatieve Vereniging De Verenigde Bloemenveilingen
    Regulation No 574/72, may have retroactive effect.                          Aalsmeer BA (VBA) to bear its own costs and to pay those of
                                                                                Florimex BV and Vereniging van Groothandelaren in Bloem-
                                                                                kwekerijprodukten (VGB) relating to the proceedings before the
(1) OJ C 212 of 12.7.1997.                                                      Court of Justice;
                                                                           3. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 295 of 30.3.2000.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Fifth Chamber)
                         of 30 March 2000                                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
in Case C-265/97 P: Coöperatieve Vereniging De Verenig-                                               (Fifth Chamber)
de Bloemenveilingen Aalsmeer BA (VBA) v Florimex BV
                           and Others (1)
                                                                                of 30 March 2000
(Appeal — Competition — Decision rejecting a complaint
— Compatibility with Article 2 of Regulation No 26 of a                    in Case C-266/97 P: Coöperatieve Vereniging De Verenig-
fee charged to external suppliers on floricultural products                de Bloemenveilingen Aalsmeer BA (VBA) v Vereniging
supplied to wholesalers established on the premises of a                   van Groothandelaren in Bloemkwekerijproducten (VGB),
 cooperative society of auctioneers — Statement of reasons)                                            Florimex BV (1)
                          (2000/C 163/04)                                  (Appeal — Competition — Closure of procedure on a
                                                                           complaint in the absence of a response by the complainants
                                                                           within the time-limit notified to them — Compatibility with
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                          Article 85(1) of the Treaty of a fee levied on suppliers
                                                                           who have concluded agreements relating to the delivery of
                                                                           floricultural products to undertakings established on the
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     premises of a cooperative auction society — Compatibility
                   in the European Court Reports)                          with Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty of an exclusive purchase
                                                                           obligation accepted by certain wholesalers reselling such
                                                                           products to retailers in a specific trading area forming part
In Case C-265/97 P: Coöperatieve Vereniging De Verenigde                   of the same premises — Discrimination — Effect on trade
Bloemenveilingen Aalsmeer BA (VBA), established in Aalsmeer                between Member States — Assessment by reference to a
(Netherlands), represented by G. van der Wal, of the Brussels              body of rules taken as a whole — Lack of appreciable effect)
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of A. May, 31 Grand-Rue — Appeal against the
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European                                               (2000/C 163/05)
Communities (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) of
14 May 1997 in Joined Cases T-70/92 and T-71/92 Florimex
and VGB v Commission [1997] ECR II-693, seeking to have                                         (Language of the case: Dutch)
that judgment set aside, the other parties to be proceedings
being: Florimex BV and Others and Vereniging van Groothan-
delaren in Bloemkwekerijprodukten (VGB), established in                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Aalsmeer (Netherlands), represented by J.A.M.P. Keijser, of the                                in the European Court Reports)
Nijmegen Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Chambers of A. Kronshagen, 22 Rue Marie-Adélaïde and                   In Case C-266/97 P: Coöperatieve Vereniging De Verenigde
Commission of the European Communities, (Agent:                            Bloemenveilingen Aalsmeer BA (VBA), established in Aalsmeer


title: Case C-418/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main by order of that court of 12 July 2001 in the case of IMS Health GmbH & Co. OHG v NDC Health GmbH & Co

text:
C 3/16                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       5.1.2002
2.   If the answer to Question 1(a) is in the affirmative:             3.    Is the material outlay (in particular in regard to costs) in
                                                                             which clients who have hitherto been supplied with the
                                                                             product of the undertaking having a dominant market
     (a)   Must the question concerning the similarity between               position would be involved if they were in future to go
           the trade mark and the sign in such a case be                     over to purchasing the product of a competing undertak-
           assessed on the basis of a criterion other than that              ing which does not make use of the data bank protected
           of (direct or indirect) confusion as to origin, and if            by copyright relevant to the question of abusive conduct
           so, according to what criterion?                                  by an undertaking with a dominant position on the
                                                                             market?
     (b) If the sign alleged to be an infringement in such a
           case is viewed purely as an embellishment by the
           relevant section of the public, what importance must
           be attached to that circumstance in connection with
           the question concerning the similarity between the
           trade mark and the sign?
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverga-
                                                                       beamt (Austria) by order of 25 September 2001 in the
                                                                       case of Traunfellner GmbH v Österreichische Autobah-
                                                                          nen- und Schnellstrassen-Finanzierungs-AG (ÖSAG)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht
Frankfurt am Main by order of that court of 12 July 2001                                       (Case C-421/01)
in the case of IMS Health GmbH & Co. OHG v NDC
                      Health GmbH & Co
                                                                                (2002/C 3/24)
                        (Case C-418/01)
                          (2002/C 3/23)
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by order of 25 September 2001 by
                                                                       the Bundesvergabeamt (Austrian Federal Procurement Office),
                                                                       which was received at the Court Registry on 24 October 2001,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 for a preliminary ruling in the case of Traunfellner GmbH v
European Communities by order of the Landgericht Frankfurt             Österreichische Autobahnen- und Schnellstrassen-Finan-
am Main (Regional Court) of 12 July 2001, which was received           zierungs-AG (ÖSAG) on the following questions:
at the Court Registry on 22 October 2001, for a preliminary
ruling in the case of IMS Health GmbH & Co. OHG v NDC
Health GmbH & Co on the following questions:                           Question 1
                                                                       Is an alternative tender that consists in proposing an asphalt
1.   Is Article 82 EC to be interpreted as meaning that there is       surface instead of overlaying the carriageway with concrete as
     abusive conduct by an undertaking with a dominant                 specified in the tender document a ‘variant’ within the meaning
     position on the market where it refuses to grant a licence        of the first paragraph of Article 19 of Directive 93/37/EEC (1)?
     agreement for the use of a data bank protected by
     copyright to an undertaking which seeks access to the
     same geographical and actual market if the participants           Question 2
     on the other side of the market, that is to say potential
     clients, reject any product which does not make use of
     the data bank protected by copyright because their set-up         Can a criterion established in national legislation to determine
     relies on products manufactured on the basis of that data         the admissibility of the acceptance of a ‘variant’ within the
     bank?                                                             meaning of the first paragraph of Article 19 of Directive
                                                                       93/37/EEC, whereby ‘the performance of qualitatively equiva-
                                                                       lent work is ensured’ by the variant, properly be regarded as a
2.   Is the extent to which an undertaking with a dominant             ‘minimum specification’ required and stated by the contracting
     position on the market has involved persons from the              authority in accordance with the first and second paragraphs
     other side of the market in the development of the data           of Article 19 of Directive 93/37/EEC, if the tender document
     bank protected by copyright relevant to the question of           refers only to the national provision and does not specify the
     abusive conduct by that undertaking?                              comparative parameters to be used to assess ‘equivalence’?


title: Case T-699/13 P: Appeal brought on 30 December 2013 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal made on 17 October 2013 in Case F-145/12 Marcuccio v Commission

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/45

         Appeal brought on 30 December 2013 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal made on 17 October 2013 in Case F-145/12 Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case T-699/13 P)
   2014/C 52/86
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               set aside in its entirety the order under appeal;

               —

               refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those put forward in Case T-698/13 P Marcuccio v Commission.


title: Case C-83/14: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — CHEZ Razpredelenie Bulgaria AD v Komisia za zashtita ot diskriminatsia (Directive 2000/43/EC — Principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin — Urban districts lived in mainly by persons of Roma origin — Placing of electricity meters on pylons forming part of the overhead electricity supply network, at a height of between six and seven metres — Concepts of ‘direct discrimination’ and ‘indirect discrimination’ — Burden of proof — Possible justification — Prevention of tampering with electricity meters and of unlawful connections — Proportionality — Widespread nature of the measure — Offensive and stigmatising effect of the measure — Directives 2006/32/EC and 2009/72/EC — Inability of final consumers to monitor their electricity consumption)

text:
               21.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/8

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — CHEZ Razpredelenie Bulgaria AD v Komisia za zashtita ot diskriminatsia
   (Case C-83/14) (1)

   ((Directive 2000/43/EC - Principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin - Urban districts lived in mainly by persons of Roma origin - Placing of electricity meters on pylons forming part of the overhead electricity supply network, at a height of between six and seven metres - Concepts of ‘direct discrimination’ and ‘indirect discrimination’ - Burden of proof - Possible justification - Prevention of tampering with electricity meters and of unlawful connections - Proportionality - Widespread nature of the measure - Offensive and stigmatising effect of the measure - Directives 2006/32/EC and 2009/72/EC - Inability of final consumers to monitor their electricity consumption))
   (2015/C 311/09)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: CHEZ Razpredelenie Bulgaria AD

      Respondent: Komisia za zashtita ot diskriminatsia

      Third parties: Anelia Nikolova, Darzhavna Komisia za energiyno i vodno regulirane

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The concept of ‘discrimination on the grounds of ethnic origin’, for the purpose of Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin and, in particular, of Articles 1 and 2(1) thereof, must be interpreted as being intended to apply in circumstances such as those at issue before the referring court — in which, in an urban district mainly lived in by inhabitants of Roma origin, all the electricity meters are placed on pylons forming part of the overhead electricity supply network at a height of between six and seven metres, whereas such meters are placed at a height of less than two metres in the other districts — irrespective of whether that collective measure affects persons who have a certain ethnic origin or those who, without possessing that origin, suffer, together with the former, the less favourable treatment or particular disadvantage resulting from that measure.

               2.

               Directive 2000/43, in particular Article 2(1) and (2)(a) and (b) thereof, must be interpreted as precluding a national provision which lays down that, in order to be able to conclude that there is direct or indirect discrimination on the grounds of racial or ethnic origin in the areas covered by Article 3(1) of the directive, the less favourable treatment or the particular disadvantage to which Article 2(2)(a) and (b) respectively refer must consist in prejudice to rights or legitimate interests.

               3.

               Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2000/43 must be interpreted as meaning that a measure such as that described in paragraph 1 of this operative part constitutes direct discrimination within the meaning of that provision if that measure proves to have been introduced and/or maintained for reasons relating to the ethnic origin common to most of the inhabitants of the district concerned, a matter which is for the referring court to determine by taking account of all the relevant circumstances of the case and of the rules relating to the reversal of the burden of proof that are envisaged in Article 8(1) of the directive.

               4.

               Article 2(2)(b) of Directive 2000/43 must be interpreted as meaning that:

                           —

                           that provision precludes a national provision according to which, in order for there to be indirect discrimination on the grounds of racial or ethnic origin, the particular disadvantage must have been brought about for reasons of racial or ethnic origin;

                           —

                           the concept of an ‘apparently neutral’ provision, criterion or practice as referred to in that provision means a provision, criterion or practice which is worded or applied, ostensibly, in a neutral manner, that is to say, having regard to factors different from and not equivalent to the protected characteristic;

                           —

                           the concept of ‘particular disadvantage’ within the meaning of that provision does not refer to serious, obvious or particularly significant cases of inequality, but denotes that it is particularly persons of a given racial or ethnic origin who are at a disadvantage because of the provision, criterion or practice at issue;

                           —

                           assuming that a measure, such as that described in paragraph 1 of this operative part, does not amount to direct discrimination within the meaning of Article 2(2)(a) of the directive, such a measure is then, in principle, liable to constitute an apparently neutral practice putting persons of a given ethnic origin at a particular disadvantage compared with other persons, within the meaning of Article 2(2)(b);

                           —

                           such a measure would be capable of being objectively justified by the intention to ensure the security of the electricity transmission network and the due recording of electricity consumption only if that measure did not go beyond what is appropriate and necessary to achieve those legitimate aims and the disadvantages caused were not disproportionate to the objectives thereby pursued. That is not so if it is found, a matter which is for the referring court to determine, either that other appropriate and less restrictive means enabling those aims to be achieved exist or, in the absence of such other means, that that measure prejudices excessively the legitimate interest of the final consumers of electricity inhabiting the district concerned, mainly lived in by inhabitants of Roma origin, in having access to the supply of electricity in conditions which are not of an offensive or stigmatising nature and which enable them to monitor their electricity consumption regularly.

      (1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.


title: Case T-350/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 5 September 2006 — Finland v Commission (Preliminary issues — Objection of inadmissibility — Act without binding legal effect — Own resources of the European Communities — Infringement procedure — Default interest provided for in Article 11 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 — Negotiation of an agreement on a conditional payment)

text:
               18.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/37

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 5 September 2006 — Finland v Commission
   (Case T-350/05) (1)

   (Preliminary issues - Objection of inadmissibility - Act without binding legal effect - Own resources of the European Communities - Infringement procedure - Default interest provided for in Article 11 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 - Negotiation of an agreement on a conditional payment)
   (2006/C 281/64)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Finland (represented by: T. Pynnä and E. Bygglin, Agents)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Aalto and G. Wilms, Agents)
   Re:
   Action for annulment of the decision of the Commission (General Secretariat) contained in the letter of 8 July 2005, by which the Commission refused to open negotiations with the Republic of Finland concerning the conditional payment of duties claimed retroactively together with default interest accrued up to the date of payment of those duties, claimed by the Commission from the Republic of Finland in the context of infringement procedure No 2003/2180, brought under Article 226 EC.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

               2.

               The Republic of Finland is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 281, 12.11.2005.


title: Case C-76/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania) lodged on 13 February 2017 — SC Petrotel Lukoil SA, Maria Magdalena Georgescu v Ministerul Economiei, Ministerul Energiei, Ministerul Finanțelor Publice

text:
               15.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/19

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania) lodged on 13 February 2017 — SC Petrotel Lukoil SA, Maria Magdalena Georgescu v Ministerul Economiei, Ministerul Energiei, Ministerul Finanțelor Publice
   (Case C-76/17)
   (2017/C 151/24)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: SC Petrotel Lukoil SA, Maria Magdalena Georgescu

      Defendants: Ministerul Economiei, Ministerul Energiei, Ministerul Finanțelor Publice

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do the provisions of Article 30 of TFEU preclude an interpretation to the effect that, when a taxpayer has in fact paid a charge having equivalent effect, he may request the recovery of the sums paid by way of that charge even though national legislation has designed a payment mechanism for that charge in such a way as to pass it on to the European consumer?

               2.

               Is the recovery of sums collected in respect of a charge having equivalent effect, when those sums were in fact paid by the taxpayer (but not passed on to the consumer), compatible with EU law?


title: Case C-396/10: Order of the President of the Court of 3 January 2011 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               16.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 120/10

         Order of the President of the Court of 3 January 2011 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-396/10) (1)

   2011/C 120/25
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 274, 9.10.2010.


title: Case C-356/10: Action brought on 16 July 2010 — European Commission v Ireland

text:
               11.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/35

         Action brought on 16 July 2010 — European Commission v Ireland
   (Case C-356/10)
   ()
   2010/C 246/59
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Walker, D. Kukovec, Agents)

      Defendant: Ireland

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare that, in the context of the award procedure by the Department of Agriculture and Food for a public supply contract for animal identification tags, concerning the application of criteria relating to tenderers’ ability to perform the contract in question as award criteria, instead of selection criteria, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 53 of Directive 2004/18/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts;

               —

               order Ireland to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission submits that the award criteria applied by the Department of Agriculture and Food included criteria reserved for the selection stage, namely criteria relating to tenderers’ ability to perform the contract in question and that, consequently, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 53 of Directive 2004/18/EC.

      (1)  OJ L 134, p. 114


title: Case T-545/14: Action brought on 18 July 2014  — GEA Group v OHIM (engineering for a better world)

text:
               29.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 339/23

         Action brought on 18 July 2014 — GEA Group v OHIM (engineering for a better world)
   (Case T-545/14)
   2014/C 339/28
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: GEA Group AG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by J. Schneiders, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 June 2014 in Case R 303/2014-4;

               —

               order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘engineering for a better world’ for goods and services in Classes 6, 7, 9, 11, 35, 37, 39, 41 and 42 — application for registration of a Community trade mark No 1 2 0 34  807

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application for registration

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Plea in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of  12 January 2006  in Case C-311/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam in Algemene Scheeps Agentuur Dordrecht BV v Inspecteur der Belastingdienst — Douanedistrict Rotterdam (Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Classification of consignments of rice — Additional Note 1(f) to Chapter 10 of the Combined Nomenclature — Validity — Post-clearance recovery of import duties — Article 220(2)(b) of the Community Customs Code — Interpretation — Good faith of the person liable for payment)

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/7

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 12 January 2006
   in Case C-311/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam in Algemene Scheeps Agentuur Dordrecht BV v Inspecteur der Belastingdienst — Douanedistrict Rotterdam (1)

   (Common Customs Tariff - Tariff headings - Classification of consignments of rice - Additional Note 1(f) to Chapter 10 of the Combined Nomenclature - Validity - Post-clearance recovery of import duties - Article 220(2)(b) of the Community Customs Code - Interpretation - Good faith of the person liable for payment)
   (2006/C 60/13)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case C-311/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam (Amsterdam Regional Court of Appeal) (Netherlands), made by decision of 28 June 2004, received at the Court on 22 July 2004, in the proceedings Algemene Scheeps Agentuur Dordrecht BV v Inspecteur der Belastingdienst — Douanedistrict Rotterdam — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, J. Malenovský (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, S. von Bahr and U. Lõhmus, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 January 2006, in which it ruled as follows:
   Examination of the first question raised has revealed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Additional Note 1(f) to Chapter 10 of Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2388/2000 of 13 October 2000.

      (1)  OJ C 239, 25.09.2004.


title: Case C-405/06 P: Appeal brought on 2 October 2006 by Miguel Torres S.A against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 11 July 2006 in Case T-247/03 Miguel Torres S.A v OHIM and Bodegas Muga S.A.

text:
               16.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 310/6

         Appeal brought on 2 October 2006 by Miguel Torres S.A against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 11 July 2006 in Case T-247/03 Miguel Torres S.A v OHIM and Bodegas Muga S.A.
   (Case C-405/06 P)
   (2006/C 310/10)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Appellant: Miguel Torres S.A (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, M. A. Baz de San Ceferino and A. Castán Pérez Gόmez, abogados)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and Bodegas Muga S.A.
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the judgment under appeal in so far as it dismisses the action for annulment brought against the contested decision;

               —

               annul the contested decision in so far as it was not annulled by the judgment under appeal; and

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               Infringement of the rights of defence of Miguel Torres S.A., by reason of the fact that the judgment under appeal dismissed the first of the pleas in law in the action for annulment before the Court of First Instance based on the infringement of the appellant's rights of defence. The refusal by the First Board of Appeal of OHIM to accept the documents produced by Miguel Torres S.A. and its statement of grounds for the appeal, of 25 January 2002, which sought to prove that the mark TORRES is well known throughout the EU is, in the appellant's view, a substantive irregularity on the basis of which the Court of First Instance should have annulled the contested decision. By failing to do so the Court of First Instance also infringed the appellant's rights of defence, undermining the principle of functional continuity and Article 8(1)(b) of the Regulation on the Community trade mark. (1)

               2.

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of the Regulation on the Community trade mark on account of incorrect interpretation of that provision by the Court of First Instance. The application by the Court of First Instance of that principle contains an error of law because of incorrect application of the criterion of the perception of the relevant public for the purpose of the assessment of the likelihood of confusion between the two conflicting marks. The appellant submits that the Court of First Instance does not take as its starting point the test relating to the perception of the average European consumer, but with the test relating to the perception of the Spanish, Portuguese and Italian consumer.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: Case T-244/09: Action brought on 22 June 2009 — Accenture Global Services v OHIM — Silver Creek Properties (acsensa)

text:
               15.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/29

         Action brought on 22 June 2009 — Accenture Global Services v OHIM — Silver Creek Properties (acsensa)
   (Case T-244/09)
   2009/C 193/46
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Accenture Global Services GmbH (Shaffhausen, Switzerland) (represented by: R. Niebel, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Silver Creek Properties SA (Panama, Panama)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 March 2009 in case R 802/2008-2;

               —

               Annul the decision of the Trade Marks Department of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 March 2008 in opposition No B 1019274; and

               —

               Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘acsensa’, for goods and services in classes 9, 35, 36, 38, 33, 41 and 42

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

      Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registration for the word mark ‘ACCENTURE’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 41 and 42; German trade mark registration of the figurative mark ‘accenture’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 41 and 42; Community trade mark registration of the word mark ‘ACCENTURE’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 41 and 42; Community trade mark registration of the figurative mark ‘accenture’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 41 and 42

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

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal erred in its finding that there is no likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned; Infringement of Articles 75 and 76 of Council Regulation 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal wrongly ignored statements of fact submitted by the applicant.


title: Action brought on 22 December 1995 by Francesco Mongelli against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-238/95)

text:
2 . 3 . 96           I EN |               Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 64/21
Action brought on 22 December 1995 by Francesco                         reduction in the Italian weighting corresponds to an
Mongelli against the Commission of the European                         actual increase in the cost of living in Italy,
                           Communities
                        ( Case T-238/95 )
                           ( 96/C 64/40 )                            — discriminatory treatment: the applicant criticizes the
                                                                        consequences of such a modus procedendo that is,
                                                                        treating pensioners differently according to whether
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                        they reside in a State with a strong currency or a State
                                                                        with a weak currency. It may readily be observed that
                                                                        pensioners residing in Italy are objectively
                                                                        disadvantaged where they have to bear charges and
An action against the Commission of the European                        expenses, particularly if they are permanent or
Communities was brought before the Court of First                       continuous, in a State whose currency is strong or must
Instance of the European Communities on 22 December                     or wish to purchase goods from such a State . On the
1995 by Francesco Mongelli , a former official of the                   other hand, pensioners residing in States whose currency
Commission of the European Communities , residing in                    is strong are at an advantage when making purchases or
Cecina ( Leghorn ), represented by Giuseppe Marchesini,                 payments in a currency of a lower value . Moreover, it
advocate with the right of audience before the Corte di                 may readily be ascertained that Member States whose
Cassazione of the Italian Republic, with an address for                 currency is certainly stronger than that of Italy and
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt,                 whose rate of inflation is lower ( Germany, France,
8— 10 Rue Mathias Hardt .
                                                                        United Kingdom, among others ) paradoxically all have a
                                                                        weighting in excess of 100 which, in the case of
                                                                        Germany, is in fact greater than the previous year,
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the applicant's pension statements as from                   — breach of the legitimate expectation that nominal
     January 1995 on the grounds set forth in the                       income would be preserved: the applicant points out that
     application,                                                       the principle that the nominal income is to be preserved
                                                                        is not a mere affirmation but is given concrete expression
                                                                        in the practice observed by the institutions since 1970 .
— order the Commission to pay the amounts due in their                  That practice, moreover, has been officially sanctioned
     entirety, together with interest at 8 % calculated from            in statements of the Council and the Commission,
     the dates on which they fell due,
— order the defendant to pay the costs of the                        — infringement of the second paragraph of Article 63 and
     proceedings .                                                      Article 45 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations : the
                                                                        applicant maintains that the irregularity is even more
                                                                        serious inasmuch as they have opted to pay the pension
                                                                        in the currency in which the institution has its seat. The
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     conversion procedure adopted by the administration is
                                                                        in two stages : the payment in Belgian francs to those who
The applicant, a former Commission official, receives an old            have so chosen was carried out by applying to the
age pension . He is resident in Italy and is subject to the             pension in Italian lire the exchange rate in force on 1 July
weighting provided for in respect of Italy. The applicant               of the year in question . That means that the
observed from the pension statement for January 1995 that               administration first calculates the pension in lire
there had been a significant reduction in his emoluments by             resulting from a prior conversion from Belgian francs to
comparison with the amount received in the preceding                    Italian lire ( since remuneration is expressed in Belgian
months. The origin of that reduction lay in Council                     francs, in accordance with Article 63 of the Staff
Regulation 3161 /94 of 19 December 1994 which amended                   Regulations ). Then, to the amount in lire resulting
the weighting previously in force .                                     therefrom,, it applies the exchange rate between lire and
                                                                        Belgian francs in force on 1 July, and carries out a second
                                                                        conversion .       This    constitutes    two      manifest
The applicant seeks the annulment of the pension statement,             infringements . The first concerns the second paragraph
contesting incidentally the Council 's basic provisions . The           of Article 63 of the Staff Regulations . That Article, after
application is based on the following grounds :                         explaining that emoluments are always to be expressed
                                                                        first of all in Belgian francs, provides that the
                                                                        remuneration paid in a currency other than Belgian
— infringement of Article 64 of the Staff Regulations : the             francs is to be calculated on the basis of exchange rates
     applicant claims that a weighting based primarily on the           used for the implementation of the general budget of the
     rate of exchange between national currencies and not on            European Communities . This means that the pensions of
     the price developments in the Member State, as provided            those who chose the Belgian franc as the currency for
     for in Article 64 of the Staff Regulations, is unlawful .          payment must be settled and paid in Belgian francs
     The anomaly is even greater if it is borne in mind that a          without there being a need for any conversion
 ---pagebreak--- No C 64/22           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    2 . 3 . 96
    whatsoever, precisely because they are not paid in any         Italian Republic, with an address for service in Luxembourg
    other currency. The second concerns the fourth                 at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8—10 Rue Mathias
    subparagraph of Article 82, which refers to the pensions       Hardt .
    which are to be paid in a currency other than Belgian
    francs and provides for a conversion operation only in
    this context .
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                   — annul the applicant's pension statements as from
                                                                       January 1995 on the grounds set forth in the
                                                                       application,
Action brought on 22 December 1995 by Alberto                      — order the Commission to pay the amounts due in their
Castagnoli against the Commission of the European                      entirety, together with interest at 8 % calculated from
                         Communities                                   the dates on which they fell due,
                      ( Case T-239/95 )
                         ( 96/C 64/41 )                            — order the defendant to pay the costs of the
                                                                       proceedings.
               (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                   The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
An action against the Commission of the European                   in Case T-238/95 Francesco Mongelli v. Commission.
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 22 December
1995 by Alberto Castagnoli, a former official of the
Commission of the European Communities, residing in
Segrate ( Milan ), represented by Giuseppe Marchesini,
advocate with the right of audience before the Corte di
Cassazione of the Italian Republic, with an address for            Action brought on 22 December 1995 by Vittorio Sadini
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt,              against the Commission of the European Communities
8— 10 Rue Mathias Hardt .                                                                ( Case T-241/95 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 64/43 )
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the applicant's pension statements as from                                 (Language of the case: Italian)
    January 1995 on the grounds set forth in the
    application,                                                   An action against the Commission of the European
— order the Commission to pay the amounts due in their             Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                   Instance of the European Communities on 22 December
    entirety, together with interest at 8 % calculated from
    the dates on which they fell due,                              1995 by Vittorio Sadini, a former official of the Commission
                                                                   of the European Communities , residing in Segrate ( Milan ),
— order the defendant to pay the costs of the                      represented by Giuseppe Marchesini, advocate with the
    proceedings .                                                  right of audience before the Corte di Cassazione of the
                                                                   Italian Republic, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                   at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8—10 Rue Mathias
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those         Hardt .
in Case T-238/95 Francesco Mongelli v. Commission .
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                   — annul the applicant's pension statements as from
                                                                       January 1995 on the grounds set forth in the
Action brought on 22 December 1995 by Eduardo Capuano                  application,
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                      ( Case T-240/95 )                            — order the Commission to pay the amounts due in their
                         ( 96/C 64/42 )                                entirety, together with interest at 8 % calculated from
                                                                       the dates on which they fell due,
                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                   — order the defendant to pay the costs of the
An action against the Commission of the European                        proceedings .
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 22 December                The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
1995 by Eduardo Capuano, a former official of the                  in Case T-238/95 Francesco Mongelli v. Commission.
Commission of the European Communities, residing in
Rome, represented by Giuseppe Marchesini, advocate with
the right of audience before the Corte di Cassazione of the


title: Case C-207/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 30 April 2012 — Essent Belgium NV v Vlaamse Reguleringsinstantie voor de Elektriciteits- en Gasmarkt (VREG)

text:
               28.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 227/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 30 April 2012 — Essent Belgium NV v Vlaamse Reguleringsinstantie voor de Elektriciteits- en Gasmarkt (VREG)
   (Case C-207/12)
   2012/C 227/15
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel

      Parties to the main proceedings

   Applicant: Essent Belgium NV
   Defendant: Vlaamse Reguleringsinstantie voor de Elektriciteits- en Gasmarkt (VREG)
   Other Party: Vlaamse Gewest

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is a national rule, such as that embodied in the Flemish Decreet van 17 juli 2000 houdende de organisatie van de elektriciteitsmarkt (Decree of 17 July 2000 on the organisation of the market in electricity), as implemented by the Besluit (Decision) of the Flemish Government of 5 March 2004, as amended by the Besluit of the Flemish Government of 25 February 2005 on the promotion of the generation of electricity from renewable energy sources, where

                           —

                           an obligation is imposed on the suppliers of electricity to final customers connected to the distribution network or the transmission network, to submit a certain number of green certificates annually to the Regulatory Authority (Article 23 of the aforementioned Decreet);

                           —

                           it is expressly provided that guarantees of origin from other countries may be submitted under certain conditions in order to fulfil the quota obligation (Article 15c(2) of the Besluit of the Flemish Government of 5 March 2004, as applicable in this case);

                           —

                           an administrative fine is imposed by the Vlaamse Reguleringsinstantie voor de Elektriciteits- en Gasmarkt (VREG) on the suppliers of electricity to final customers connected to the distribution network or the transmission network when the supplier has not submitted a sufficient number of green certificates to fulfil a quota obligation which has been imposed in respect of green certificates (Article 37(2) of the aforementioned Decreet);

                           —

                           the Regulatory Authority cannot or will not take into account any guarantees of origin originating from Norway and that being in the absence of implementing measures on the part of the Flemish Government, which has acknowledged the equality or equivalence of those certificates (Article 25 of the aforementioned Decreet and Article 15c(2) of the Besluit of 5 March 2004), without that equality or equivalence being investigated by the Regulatory Authority in concrete terms;

                           —

                           in fact, during the whole time that the Decreet of 17 July 2000 was in force, only certificates for the production of green energy generated in the Flemish Region were taken into account when ascertaining whether the quota obligation had been fulfilled, whereas for the suppliers of electricity to final customers connected to the distribution network or transmission network there was no possibility whatsoever of demonstrating that the guarantees of origin from other Member States of the European Union met the condition of the existence of equal or equivalent guarantees regarding the granting of such certificates,

                     compatible with Article 11 of the EEA Agreement and Article 13 of the EEA Agreement?

               2.

               Is a national rule as referred to in subquestion 1 above compatible with Article 5 of the then Directive 2001/77/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market (in so far as relevant to the EEA)?

               3.

               Is a national rule as referred to in subquestion 1 above compatible with the principle of equal treatment and the prohibition of discrimination as embodied inter alia in Article 14 of the EEA Agreement and Article 3 of the then Directive 2003/54/EC (2) 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 (in so far as relevant to the EEA)?

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 283, p. 33.

      (2)  OJ 2003 L 176, p. 37.


title: Case T-385/07: Action brought on 4 October 2007 — FIFA v Commission

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/41

         Action brought on 4 October 2007 — FIFA v Commission
   (Case T-385/07)
   (2007/C 315/77)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) (represented by: R. Denton, E. Batchelor and F. Young, Solicitors)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               The annulment of the decision, in particular Articles 1-2 thereof; and

               —

               an order that the Commission pay its own costs and FIFA's costs in connection with these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Under Article 3a of Council Directive 89/552/EEC (1) a Member State may draw up a list of sporting or other events that are considered to be events of ‘major importance to society’. The events on the list cannot be the subject of exclusive broadcasting rights which prevent a substantial proportion of the public in that Member State from watching the event via live coverage or deferred coverage on free television.
   The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision 2007/479/EC of 25 June 2007 (2) by which the Commission declared that the list drawn up by Belgium pursuant to Article 3a(1) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC was compatible with Community law.
   In support of its application the applicant submits that the Belgian list restricts the freedom to provide services by preventing the applicant from licensing foreign broadcasters with live exclusive FIFA World Cup broadcasting rights in respect of the Belgian market and that the listing of all FIFA World Cup matches, regardless of popularity, is not justified, proportionate or necessary.
   Furthermore, the applicant alleges that the Belgian list restricts freedom of establishment by preventing the applicant from licensing new entrants who wish to use premium sports broadcasting to establish themselves on the Belgian market.
   Moreover, the applicant contends that the Belgian list infringes the applicant's property rights by depriving it of exclusivity in respect of its broadcasting rights, recognised according to the applicant by EC law to be the essence of intellectual property protection.
   Finally, the applicant argues that contrary to Article 3a(1) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC the Belgian list was not drawn up in a clear and transparent manner.

      (1)  Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (OJ 1989 L 298, p. 23).

      (2)  Commission Decision 2007/479/EC of 25 June 2007 on the compatibility with Community law of measures taken by Belgium pursuant to Article 3a(1) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (OJ 2007 L 180, p. 24).


title: Case F-30/10: Action brought on 12 May 2010 — de Fays v Commission

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/59

         Action brought on 12 May 2010 — de Fays v Commission
   (Case F-30/10)
   2010/C 179/104
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Philippe de Fays (Malèves Sainte Marie Wastinnes, Belgium) (represented by: N. Soldatos, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision refusing to recognise the occupational nature of the disease suffered by the applicant.

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decisions of the appointing authority of 8 September 2009 and 12 February 2010 and recognise that the applicant has been unfit to work because of occupational disease since 15 May 2005;

               —

               alternatively and secondarily, again appoint a medical committee consisting of doctors with expertise in diseases caused by ionising radiation with the task of establishing whether, in the course of carrying out his professional duties, the applicant was exposed to the risk of contracting a disease caused by ionising radiation;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: Judgment of the Court of 10 November 2014 in Case E-8/14 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2009/38/EC — Failure to implement)

text:
               13.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 158/15

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 10 November 2014
   in Case E-8/14
   EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland
   (Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2009/38/EC — Failure to implement)
   (2015/C 158/09)
   In Case E-8/14, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that by failing, within the time prescribed to adopt and/or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority forthwith of all measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 27 of Annex XVIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, that is Directive 2009/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 on the establishment of a European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes of informing and consulting employees (Recast), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto and by EEA Joint Committee Decision No 54/2010 of 30 April 2010, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and Article 7 EEA, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 10 November 2014, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Declares that by failing, within the time prescribed, to adopt all the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 27 of Annex XVIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, that is Directive 2009/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 on the establishment of a European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes of informing and consulting employees (Recast), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto and by Joint Committee Decision No 54/2010, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the Agreement.

               2.

               Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 11 December 1996 in Case T-177/95: Patrick Barraux and Others v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Specific weighting)

text:
No C 40/ 16           LIN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                             8 . 2 . 97
2 . orders the applicants jointly and severally to pay all              the Commission of the European Communities, residing at
     the costs incurred in this case, including the costs               Stutensee ( Germany ), and Vittorino Tebaldi , an official of
     relating to the proceedings for interim relief;                    the Commission of the European Communities, residing at
                                                                        Marxzell-Burbach ( Germany ), represented by Jean-Noel
3.   orders the interveners to hear their own costs .                   Louis, Thierry Demaseure, Veronique Leclercq and Ariane
                                                                        Tornel , of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
(') 01 No C 188 , 10 . 7 . 1993 .                                       Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 1
                                                                        Rue Glesener, v. Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities (Agent: Gianluigi Valsesia ), supported by
                                                                        Council of the European Union ( Agents : Yves Cretien ,
                                                                        Antonio Lucidi and Diego Canga Fano ) and Federal
                                                                        Republic of Germany ( Agents : Ernst Röder, Bernd Kloke
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               and Sabine Maass ) — application for annulment of the
                      of 11 December 1996                               pay slips issued for the period from 1 July 1 994 to
                                                                        31 December 1994 pursuant to Council Regulation
in Case T-49/95 : Van Megen Sports Group BV v.                          ( ECSC, EC , Euratom ) No 3161 /94 of 19 December 1994
        Commission of the European Communities (')                      adjusting, with effect from I July 1994 , the remuneration
(Competition — Article 85 of the EC Treaty — Proof of                   and pensions of officials and other servants of the
the infringement — Fine — Statement of the reasons for                  European Communities and the weightings applied thereto
                            the decision )                              ( OJ No L 335 , 23 . 12 . 1994 , p. 1 ), inasmuch as those pay
                                                                        slips apply retroactively a specific weighting for Karlsruhe
                            ( 97/C 40/40 )                              fixed at 99,8 — the Court of First Instance ( Fourth
                                                                        Chamber ), composed of: K. Lenaerts , President, and R
                  (Language of the case: Dutch)                         Lindh and J. D. Cooke , Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez,
                                                                        Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
In Case T-49/95 : Van Megen Sports Group BV, formerly                    11 December 1996 , in which it:
Van Megen Tennis BV, established in Eindhoven
( Netherlands ), represented by Antonius Wouters Willems,
Advocaat, Eindhoven , with an address for service in                     1.   dismisses the action ;
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch , 1 1 Rue
Goethe, v. Commission of the European Communities
                                                                        2 . orders     the    applicants ,     the   defendant      and       the
( Agents : Francisco Enrique Gonzalez Diaz and Wouter                         interveners to hear their own costs .
Wils ) — application for annulment of Commission
Decision 94/987/EC of 21 December 1994 relating to a
proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the EC Treaty ( IV/                 (') O No C ; 315 , 25 . 11 . 1995 .
 32.948 — IV/34.590 : Tretorn and others ) ( OJ No L 378 ,
 31 . 12 . 1994 , p. 45 ) — the Court of First Instance ( Fourth
 Chamber ), composed of: K. Lenaerts, President of the
 Chamber, P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges ; J. Palacio
 Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
 judgment on 11 December 1996 , in which it:
                                                                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 1 . dismisses the application;                                                                of 12 December 1996
                                                                         in    Case   T-16/91       RV:     Rendo    NV   and      Others       v.
 2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.                                      Commission of the European Communities (')
 (>) OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 .                                          (Competition — Implied rejection of a complaint —
                                                                         Statement of reasons — Appeal — Referral of a case back
                                                                          to the Court of First Instance — Continuation of the
                                                                                proceedings — Costs)
                                                                                ( 97/C 40/42 )
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 11 December 1996                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
 in   Case    T-177/95 :      Patrick  Barraux   and    Others   v.
          Commission of the European Communities (')                      In Case T-16/91 RV: Rendo NV, established at Hoogeveen
                                                                          ( Netherlands ), Centraal Overijsselse Nutsbedrijven NV,
                  (Officials — Specific weighting)
                                                                          established     at      Almelo       ( Netherlands ),     Regionaal
                              ( 97/C 40/41 )                              Energiebedrijf Salland NV, established at Deventer
                                                                          ( Netherlands ), represented by Tom R. Ottervanger, of the
                   (Language of the case: French)                         Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                          the Chambers of Stef Oostvogels, 13 Rue Aldringen v.
  In Case T-177/95 : Patrick Barraux, an official of the                  Commission of the European Communities ( Agent: Berend
  Commission of the European Communities, residing at                     Jan Drijber ), supported by Samenverkende Elecktriciteits
  Karlsruhe ( Germany ), Klaus Kammerichs, an official of                 produktiebedrijven          NV,     established       at    Arnhem


title: Case F-85/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 27 January 2016 — Glantenay and Others v Commission

text:
               7.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/27

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 27 January 2016 — Glantenay and Others v Commission
   (Case F-85/15) (1)

   (2016/C 090/37)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 262, 10/8/2015, p. 42.


title: Case T-523/09: Judgment of the General Court of 13 April 2011 — Smart Technologies v OHIM (WIR MACHEN DAS BESONDERE EINFACH) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark WIR MACHEN DAS BESONDERE EINFACH — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               28.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 160/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 April 2011 — Smart Technologies v OHIM (WIR MACHEN DAS BESONDERE EINFACH)
   (Case T-523/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark WIR MACHEN DAS BESONDERE EINFACH - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2011/C 160/32
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Smart Technologies ULC (Calgary, Canada) (represented by: M. Edenborough, QC, T. Elias, Barrister, and R. Harrison, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 September 2009 (Case R 554/2009-2), concerning an application for the word sign WIR MACHEN DAS BESONDERE EINFACH as a Community trade mark

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Smart Technologies ULC to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 51, 27.2.2010.


title: Case F-128/15: Action brought on 30 September 2015 — ZZ and ZZ v Commission

text:
               14.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 414/43

         Action brought on 30 September 2015 — ZZ and ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-128/15)
   (2015/C 414/55)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: ZZ and ZZ (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of either the proposal for the calculation, or the final calculation, of the number of years of pensionable service granted in the European Union pension scheme and corresponding to the applicants’ pension rights, acquired under national schemes, which they wish to transfer into the European Union pension scheme, pursuant to the new general implementing provisions for Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decisions of 30 April 2015, of 1 July 2015 and of 6 July 2015 fixing the amount credited to the Community pension scheme in respect of the applicants’ pension rights acquired prior to their entry into service at the Commission;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


18.3.2000             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 79/21
       Removal from the register of Case C-337/99 (1)                    Removal from the register of Case C-436/99 P (1)
                        (2000/C 79/42)                                                      (2000/C 79/45)
By order of 9 December 1999 the President of the Court of          By order of 13 January 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal        Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case-337/99: Commission of the European       from the register of Case C-436/99 P: Karl Meyer v Commission
Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.                                  of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 314 of 30.10.1999.                                        (1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-115/99 (1)
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case C-252/98 (1)
                        (2000/C 79/43)
                                                                                (2000/C 79/46)
By order of 12 January 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal        By order of 18 January 2000 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-115/99: Kingdom of Sweden v            Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
Council of the European Union.                                     from the register of Case C-252/98: Commission of the
                                                                   European Communities v French Republic.
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.
       Removal from the register of Case C-461/98 (1)
                        (2000/C 79/44)                                    Removal from the register of Case C-272/99 (1)
By order of 13 January 2000 the President of the Court of                                   (2000/C 79/47)
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-461/98: Commission of the              By order of 19 January 2000 the President of the Court of
European Communities v Republic of Austria.                        Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                   from the register of Case C-272/99: Commission of the
(1) OJ C 48 of 20.2.1999.                                          European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.


title: Case T-603/17: Action brought on 5 September 2017 — Republic of Lithuania v European Commission

text:
               23.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 357/29

         Action brought on 5 September 2017 — Republic of Lithuania v European Commission

   (Case T-603/17)
   (2017/C 357/38)
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Lithuania, represented by D. Kriaučiūnas, R. Krasuckaitė, R. Dzikovič and M. Palionis

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/1144 of 26 June 2017 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (1) in so far as it applies to Lithuania a financial correction of EUR 4 207 894,93;

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In its application the applicant puts forward three pleas in law.
   By applying a flat-rate 5 % financial correction of EUR 4 207 894,93 on the ground of deficiencies in key controls, the European Commission (‘the Commission’) breached Article 52(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 (2) in that, when deciding on the extent of the non-conformity, the nature of the infringements and the financial damage caused to the European Union:

               1.

               it mistakenly took the view that the quality of the on-the-spot checks carried out in Lithuania was inadequate and was to be regarded as constituting a deficiency in a key control, because:

                           1.1.

                           it misinterpreted and misapplied Article 26(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 (3) and, basing itself on that interpretation, unjustifiably established that, during the on-the-spot check, the Lithuanian institutions had failed to verify whether the payment claims submitted by the support beneficiary were supported by accounting and other suitable documents;

                           1.2.

                           it misinterpreted Article 26(1)(d) of Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 and, basing itself on that interpretation, unjustifiably established that, during the on-the-spot check, the Lithuanian institutions had failed to verify that the publicly funded operations had been implemented in accordance with, in particular, the rules on public tendering;

                           1.3.

                           it misinterpreted Article 25(4) of Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 and, basing itself on that interpretation, found that the inspectors undertaking the on-the-spot check had failed to comply with the requirement that they be independent of the workers who had been involved in carrying out the administrative checks of the same operation;

               2.

               it mistakenly took the view that the quality of the checks carried out on the soundness of the expenditure effected in Lithuania was to be regarded as constituting a deficiency in a key control, because:

                           2.1.

                           it misinterpreted Article 24(2)(d) of Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 and, basing itself on that interpretation, unjustifiably established that the reasonableness of the costs submitted had not been adequately verified;

                           2.2.

                           in any event, it unjustifiably applied a 5 % financial correction, as the established scale of the potential non-compliance with the system for checking the validity of expenditure is significantly smaller;

               3.

               it failed to have regard for the harm actually caused to the European Union in respect of the expenditure connected with voluntary work, and incorrectly took the view that there had been an inadequate verification as to whether the expenditure for the activity connected with immovable property satisfies the requirements, and consequently erred in establishing that there had been a deficiency in a key control, because:

                           3.1.

                           it improperly failed to take account of the data supplied by the Lithuanian institutions concerning the examination ordered by the Agency and carried out by independent experts, in the course of which it was established what actual damage may have been caused to the EU funds and what the amount of that damage was, and also what damage was connected with deficiencies in the system of checks of in-kind contributions (voluntary unpaid work), and unjustifiably applied a flat-rate 5 % financial correction;

                           3.2.

                           it incorrectly held that Article 24(2)(c) and (d) of Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 had not been complied with during the conducting of the administrative checks on applications for support and the verification of project expenditure — in-kind contributions (immovable property).

      (1)  OJ 2017 L 165, p. 37.

      (2)  Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549).

      (3)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 of 27 January 2011 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, as regards the implementation of control procedures as well as cross-compliance in respect of rural development support measures (OJ 2011 L 25, p. 8).