title: Case C-503/10: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — Evroetil AD v Direktor na Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’ (Directive 2003/30/EC — Article 2(2)(a) — Concept of bioethanol — Product obtained from biomass, undenatured and with an ethyl alcohol content of over 98,5 % — Relevance of actual use as a biofuel — Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 — Combined Nomenclature — Tariff classification of bioethanol for the purpose of collecting excise duties — Directive 2003/96/EC — Energy products — Directive 92/83/EEC — First indent of Article 20 and Article 27(1)(a) and (b) — Concept of ethyl alcohol — Exemption from the harmonised duty — Denaturing)

text:
               18.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 49/12

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — Evroetil AD v Direktor na Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’
   (Case C-503/10) (1)

   (Directive 2003/30/EC - Article 2(2)(a) - Concept of bioethanol - Product obtained from biomass, undenatured and with an ethyl alcohol content of over 98,5 % - Relevance of actual use as a biofuel - Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff classification of bioethanol for the purpose of collecting excise duties - Directive 2003/96/EC - Energy products - Directive 92/83/EEC - First indent of Article 20 and Article 27(1)(a) and (b) - Concept of ethyl alcohol - Exemption from the harmonised duty - Denaturing)
   2012/C 49/19
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Varhoven administrativen sad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Evroetil AD

      Defendant: Direktor na Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary hearing — Varhoven administrativen sad — interpretation of Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2003/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 May 2003 on the promotion of the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport (OJ 2003 L 123, p. 42), of the Combined Nomenclature (CN) of the Common Customs Tariff in 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 (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2587/91 of 26 July 1991 (OJ 1991 L 259, p. 1), of Article 2(1) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51), and of the first indent of Article 20 of Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages (OJ 1992 L 316, p. 21) — Produit obtenu à partir de la biomasse, contenant des esters, des alcools supérieurs et des aldéhydes, ayant une teneur en alcool supérieure à 98 % et n'ayant pas fait l'objet d'une dénaturation — Notion de bioéthanol — Classement dans la sous-position 2207 20 00 (Ethyl alcohol and other spirits, denatured, of any strength) or dans la sous-position 2207 10 00 (Undenatured ethyl alcohol of an alcoholic strength by volume of 80 % or higher), en vue de la perception de droits d'accises.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The definition of bioethanol in Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2003/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 May 2003 on the promotion of the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport must be interpreted as meaning that it includes a product such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which is obtained inter alia from biomass and which contains more than 98.5 % ethyl alcohol, once it is offered for sale as biofuel for transport.

               2.

               European Union law must be interpreted as meaning that a product such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which contains more than 98.5 % ethyl alcohol and has not been denatured in a special denaturing procedure must be subject to the excise duty provided for in Article 19(1) of Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages, even where it was obtained from biomass using a technology which differs from the technology for the production of agricultural ethyl alcohol, contains substances making it unsuitable for human consumption, satisfies the requirements laid down in European standard prEN 15376 for bioethanol used as fuel and potentially meets the definition of bioethanol in Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2003/30.

      (1)  OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.


title: Case T-33/07: Action brought on 12 February 2007 — Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/42

         Action brought on 12 February 2007 — Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-33/07)
   (2007/C 82/91)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I. Khalkias and G. Kanellopoulos)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the contested Commission decision or alter it in accordance with the matters set out more specifically below;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In its action challenging Commission Decision C(2006) 5993 final of 14 December 2006 (OJ 2006 L 355, p. 96) by which the Commission excluded from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States — in the present case the Hellenic Republic — in the context of clearing expenditure of the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), the Hellenic Republic puts forward the following pleas for annulment.
   By the first, general, plea of annulment, which relates to all the corrections, the applicant submits that the defendant infringed an essential procedural requirement which is laid down in subparagraph (a) [sic] of the third subparagraph of Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 (1), in respect of the failure to conduct a bilateral discussion with the Greek authorities on the assessment of the gravity of the infringements attributed to them and the loss suffered by the European Community, and, in the alternative, the Commission lacked power ratione temporis to impose corrections.
   More specifically, in the olive oil sector, the applicant submits that the defendant exceeded the limits of the discretion enjoyed by it, because it doubled the correction from 5 % to 10 % although no worsening — but, on the contrary, an improvement — of the control system had been noted. Also, in the applicant's submission the defendant erred in its interpretation of Community provisions and in the assessment of the facts, infringing the principle of proportionality.
   In relation to the cotton sector, the applicant puts forward as a plea for annulment incorrect assessment of the facts, incorrect reasoning, the lack of a legal basis for imposing the correction, the incorrect interpretation and application of Article 12(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1201/89 (2) and infringement of the principle of legal certainty because the duration of the procedure for allocating expenditure exceeded 10 years.
   In relation to the grape sector, the applicant puts forward the argument that the defendant misinterpreted the guidelines for corrections in setting the figure of 10 % for inadequate secondary controls, and that the defendant gave an inadequate statement of reasons for the decision as regards the correction for currants.
   In relation to citrus fruit, the applicant submits that the defendant mistakenly relied upon, and did not provide a sufficient statement of reasons in respect of, the stated deficiencies in administrative controls, infringing the principle of proportionality; in the alternative it erred in its interpretation and temporal application of Annex 16 to document 17933/2000 with regard to the classification of the checks in question as basic.
   Finally, with regard to the late payments, the applicant pleads that there was an incorrect assessment of the facts because of the imposition of a double correction in respect of budget item B01-1210-160, incorrect interpretation and application of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 296/96 (3) in relation to the basis for calculation of the 4 % reserve, and an incorrect assessment and insufficient statement of reasons so far as concerns the exceptional circumstances and special management conditions that were put forward.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 of 7 July 1995 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 regarding the procedure for the clearance of the accounts of the EAGGF Guarantee Section (OJ No L 158, 8.7.1995, p. 6).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1201/89 of 3 May 1989 laying down rules implementing the system of aid for cotton (OJ No L 123, 4.5.1989, p. 23).

      (3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 296/96 of 16 February 1996 on data to be forwarded by the Member States and the monthly booking of expenditure financed under the Guarantee Section of the Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2776/88 (OJ No L 39, 17.2.1996, p. 5).


title: Case T-321/15: Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2015 — GSA and SGI v Parliament (Public service contracts — Tendering procedure — Supply of fire security, assistance to persons and external surveillance at the European Parliament’s site — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid — Obligation to produce prior authorisation issued pursuant to national legislation — Proportionality — Equal Treatment — Principle of openness — Freedom to provide services)

text:
               11.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/29

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2015 — GSA and SGI v Parliament
   (Case T-321/15) (1)

   ((Public service contracts - Tendering procedure - Supply of fire security, assistance to persons and external surveillance at the European Parliament’s site - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Obligation to produce prior authorisation issued pursuant to national legislation - Proportionality - Equal Treatment - Principle of openness - Freedom to provide services))
   (2016/C 007/39)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Gruppo Servizi Associati SpA (GSA) (Rome, Italy) and Security Guardian’s Institute (SGI) (Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium) (represented by: E. van Nuffel d’Heynsbroeck, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: P. López-Carceller and B. Simon, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Parliament’s decisions, contained in the letter of 12 June 2015, by which the Parliament informed the applicants, first, of the rejection of the tender submitted by them in respect of the open tendering procedure EP/DGSAFE/UIB/SER/2014-014 for the provision of fire security, assistance to persons (part 1) and external surveillance (part 2) at the European Parliament’s site in Brussels (O 2014/S 246-433095) and, secondly, that the relevant contract had been awarded to another company.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Gruppo Servizi Associati SpA (GSA) and Security Guardian’s Institute (SGI) to pay the costs, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2015.


title: Case C-190/13: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 3 de Barcelona — Spain) — Antonio Márquez Samohano v Universitat Pompeu Fabra (Social policy  — Directive 1999/70/EC  — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP  — Universities  — Associate lecturers  — Successive fixed-term employment contracts  — Clause 5(1)  — Measures to prevent the abusive use of fixed-term contracts  — Concept of ‘objective reasons’ justifying such contracts  — Clause 3  — Concept of ‘employment contract of indefinite duration’   — Penalties  — Right to compensation  — Difference in treatment between permanent workers)

text:
               5.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 135/17

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 3 de Barcelona — Spain) — Antonio Márquez Samohano v Universitat Pompeu Fabra
   (Case C-190/13) (1)

   ((Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Universities - Associate lecturers - Successive fixed-term employment contracts - Clause 5(1) - Measures to prevent the abusive use of fixed-term contracts - Concept of ‘objective reasons’ justifying such contracts - Clause 3 - Concept of ‘employment contract of indefinite duration’ - Penalties - Right to compensation - Difference in treatment between permanent workers))
   2014/C 135/18
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Social No 3 de Barcelona

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Antonio Márquez Samohano

      Defendant: Universitat Pompeu Fabra

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de lo Social No 3 de Barcelona — Interpretation of clauses 3 and 5 of the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43) — Employment contracts concluded with the public administration — University professors — Absence of measures to prevent the abusive use of successive fixed-term employment contracts.

      Operative part of the judgment

   Clause 5 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as not precluding national rules, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which allow universities to renew successive fixed-term employment contracts concluded with associate lecturers, with no limitation as to the maximum duration and the number of renewals of those contracts, where such contracts are justified by an objective reason within the meaning of clause 5(1)(a), which is a matter for the referring court to verify. However, it is also for that court to ascertain that, in the main proceedings, the renewal of the successive fixed-term employment contracts at issue was actually intended to cover temporary needs and that rules such as those at issue in the main proceedings were not, in fact, used to meet fixed and permanent needs in terms of employment of teaching staff.

      (1)  OJ C 189, 29.6.2013.


title: Case T-265/00: Order of the Court of First Instance of  20 October 2005  — Comitato  Venezia Vuole Vivere  v Commission

text:
               24.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/25

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 20 October 2005 — Comitato ‘Venezia Vuole Vivere’ v Commission
   (Case T-265/00) (1)

   (2005/C 330/61)

      Language of the case: Italian

   The President of the Second Chamber (Extended Composition) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 335, 25.11.2000.


title: Case T-466/13: Action brought on 28 August 2013 — Hermann Trollius v ECHA

text:
               9.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 325/44

         Action brought on 28 August 2013 — Hermann Trollius v ECHA
   (Case T-466/13)
   2013/C 325/72
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Hermann Trollius GmbH (Lauterhofen, Germany) (represented by: M. Ahlhaus and J. Schrotz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul ECHA’s decision No SME (2013) 0191 of 31 January 2013, as well as ECHA’s invoice No 10035033 of 4 February 2013; and

               —

               Order the Defendant to bear all costs including the Applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging the Defendant’s lack of competence.

                           —

                           The Applicant submits that the defendant has not been competent to adopt the contested decision SME (2013) 0191, because neither Regulation (EC) 1907/2006 (1) nor Regulation (EC) 340/2008 (2) entitles the Defendant to issue a separate decision as to whether a registrant complies with the SME criteria.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging the violation of Article 104(1) of the Reach Regulation in connection with Regulation No 1 of 15 April 1958 (3).

                           —

                           The Applicant submits that in its entire communication with the Applicant, the Defendant disregarded its obligation to address a person subject to the sovereignty of a Member State in the official language of that state, and that this breach of law has prevented the Applicant from fulfilling the requirements demanded of him with regard to proving its status as a small enterprise.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Applicant in fact is a small enterprise according to Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC (4), and so the contested decisions are wrong on the substance.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (Reach Regulation)

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 340/2008 of 16 April 2008 on the fees and charges payable to the European Chemicals Agency pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)

      (3)  EEC Council: Regulation No 1 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community

      (4)  Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises


title: Joined Cases C-283/14 and C-284/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 January 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf, Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — CM Eurologistik GmbH v Hauptzollamt Duisburg (C-283/14), Grünwald Logistik Service GmbH (GLS) v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt (C-284/14) (References for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EU) No 158/2013 — Validity — Anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits originating in China — Effect to be given to a judgment having found a preceding regulation to be invalid — Reopening of the initial investigation to determine the normal value — Reimposition of the anti-dumping duty on the basis of the same data — Investigation period to be taken into account)

text:
               21.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/4

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 January 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf, Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — CM Eurologistik GmbH v Hauptzollamt Duisburg (C-283/14), Grünwald Logistik Service GmbH (GLS) v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt (C-284/14)
   (Joined Cases C-283/14 and C-284/14) (1)

   ((References for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) No 158/2013 - Validity - Anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits originating in China - Effect to be given to a judgment having found a preceding regulation to be invalid - Reopening of the initial investigation to determine the normal value - Reimposition of the anti-dumping duty on the basis of the same data - Investigation period to be taken into account))
   (2016/C 106/04)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Düsseldorf, Finanzgericht Hamburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: CM Eurologistik GmbH (C-283/14), Grünwald Logistik Service GmbH (GLS) (C-284/14)

      Defendants: Hauptzollamt Duisburg (C-283/14), Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt (C-284/14)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The consideration of the questions referred has not revealed any factor capable of affecting the validity of the Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 158/2013 of 18 February 2013 reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits (namely mandarins, etc.) originating in the People’s Republic of China.

      (1)  OJ C 315, 15.9.2014.


title: Case T-6/12: Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Godrej Industries and VVF v Council (Dumping — Imports of certain fatty alcohols and their blends originating in India, Indonesia and Malaysia — Adjustment for currency conversion claimed — Burden of proof — Injury — Definitive anti-dumping duty)

text:
               19.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 304/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Godrej Industries and VVF v Council
   (Case T-6/12) (1)

   (Dumping - Imports of certain fatty alcohols and their blends originating in India, Indonesia and Malaysia - Adjustment for currency conversion claimed - Burden of proof - Injury - Definitive anti-dumping duty)
   2013/C 304/29
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Godrej Industries Ltd (Mumbai, India), and VVF Ltd (Mumbai) (represented by: B. Servais, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, acting as Agent, with G. Berrisch and A. Polcyn, lawyers)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Sasol Olefins & Surfactants GmbH, (Hamburg, Germany), Sasol Germany GmbH (Hamburg) (represented by: V. Akritidis, lawyer, and J. Beck, Solicitor); and European Commission (represented by: M. França and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1138/2011 of 8 November 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain fatty alcohols and their blends originating in India, Indonesia and Malaysia (OJ 2011 L 293, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Godrej Industries Ltd and VVF Ltd to pay the costs of the Council of the European Union and also those incurred by Sasol Olefins & Surfactants GmbH and Sasol Germany GmbH, in addition to bearing their own costs;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 49, 18.2.2012.


title: Case T-279/07: Action brought on 23 July 2007 — France v Commission

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/56

         Action brought on 23 July 2007 — France v Commission
   (Case T-279/07)
   (2007/C 211/104)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, G. de Bergues, L. Butel and S. Ramet, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested decision;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the present action, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 2110 Final of 10 May 2007 declaring incompatible with Article 86(1) EC, read together with Articles 43 and 49 EC, the provisions of the French Code Monétaire et Financier, which provides for special rights for three credit institutions, namely the Banque Postale, les Caisses d'Épargne et de Prévoyance and the Crédit Mutuel, for the distribution of the Livret A and Livret Bleu.
   It relies on five pleas in law in support of its action.
   The first plea alleges breach of the rights of the defence and disregard of the principle audi alteram partem.
   Second, the applicant claims that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment in finding that the special rights in question constituted an obstacle to freedom of establishment and, consequently, were incompatible with Article 43 EC, without having demonstrated that those rights were not necessary and proportionate having regard to the overriding reasons of public interest, namely the objectives of access to housing and accessibility of banking services.
   By its third plea, the applicant claims that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment in the application of the third condition of Article 86(2) EC in finding that the service of general economic interest of accessibility of banks is intended only for persons having particular difficulties with access to basic banking services. It alleges that the Commission exceeded its powers of control of the definition of a service of general economic interest and, in any event, applied an overly restrictive definition of the mission of accessibility to banking. According to the applicant, the Commission also made a manifest error of assessment in the application of the second condition of Article 86(2) EC relating to the obligation to award the contract for a service by an act of State, and also in the application of the third and fourth conditions of that article. It alleges that the Commission made an error in the calculation of the impact of the abolishment of the special rights for the public finances and that it made a manifest error of assessment in the application of the principle of proportionality in finding that there are other, less restrictive means for the freedom of establishment than the granting of special rights in order to ensure balanced financing of services of general economic interest such as accessibility of banking and financing of social housing.
   By its fourth plea, the applicant claims that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment in finding that the special rights in question were incompatible with Article 49 EC.
   The fifth plea relied on by the applicant alleges a failure to state reasons in the contested decision.


No C 294/ 10           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  5 . 10 . 96
    — Commission Directive 93/ 105/EC of 25 November                  Italian Republic having brought into force the necessary
        1993 laying down Annex VII D , containing                     provisions in order to comply with those Directives .
        information required for the technical dossier
        referred to in Article 12 of the seventh amendment to         0)   OJ No   L 228 , 17.  8 . 1991 , p . 67.
        Council Directive 67/548/EEC (4 ),                            (2 ) OJ No   L 264,  23 . 10 . 1993 , p. 51 .
                                                                      (3)  OJ No   L 277,  10 . 11 . 1993 , p . 33 .
    — Council Directive 92/72/EEC of 21 September 1992                (4 ) OJ No   L 294 , 30 . 11 . 1993 , p . 21 .
        on air pollution by ozone ( 5 ),                              (5 ) OJ No   L 297,  13 . 10 . 1992 , p . 1 .
the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
those Directives,
order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              Removal from the register of Case C-289/95 ( )
                                                                                96/C 294/20
Under Article 189 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved, on
each Member State to which it is addressed, Member States             By order of 3 May 1996 , the President of the Court of Justice
are required to observe the time limits laid down in                  of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
directives for their transposition . That time limit expired on       register of Case C-289/95 : Commission of the European
1 August 1992 ( Directive 91 /410/EEC ), on 31 December               Communities v. Italian Republic .
1993 ( Directives 93/86/EEC, 93/90/EEC, 93/105/EC ) and
on 21 March 1994 ( Directive 92/72/EEC ) without the                  (') OJ No C 268 , 14 . 10 . 1995 .
                                                     COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Designation of Presidents of Chambers and assignment of                     Second Chamber, Extended Composition:
                      Judges to Chambers
                                                                            Mr Bellamy, President of Chamber, and Messrs
                          ( 96/C 294/21 )                                   Kirschner, Briët, Kalogeropoulos and Potocki,
                                                                            Judges;
At its meeting on 12 September 1996 , the Court of First
Instance decided, pursuant to Article 2 ( 4 ) of Council                    Third Chamber:
Decision of 24 October 1988 and Articles 10 and 15 of the
 Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, for the                 Mr Vesterdorf, President of Chamber, and Messrs Briët
period between 1 October 1996 and 30 September 1997:                        and Potocki , Judges;
 A. To designate as Presidents of Chamber:                                  Third Chamber, Extended Composition:
     — Mr Vesterdorf                                                        Mr B. Vesterdorf, President of Chamber, Mr Briët, Ms
     — Mr García-Valdecasas                                                 Lindh, Mr Potocki and Mr Cooke, Judges;
     — Mr Lenaerts                                                          Fourth Chamber:
     — Mr Bellamy                                                           Mr Lenaerts , President of Chamber, Ms Lindh and Mr
                                                                            Cooke , Judges ;
 B. To assign the Members of the Court of First Instance to
     the Chambers as follows :                                              Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition:
     First Chamber:                                                         Mr Lenaerts, President of Chamber, Ms Lindh, Mr
                                                                            Azizi , Mr Cooke and Mr Jaeger, Judges;
     President Saggio, Ms Tiili and Mr Moura Ramos,
     Judges;                                                                Fifth Chamber:
     First Chamber, Extended Composition:                                   Mr García-Valdecasas, President of Chamber, and
     President Saggio, Mr Kirschner, Mr Kalogeropoulos,                     Messrs Azizi and Jaeger, Judges ;
     Ms Tiili and Mr Moura Ramos, Judges;
                                                                            Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition:
     Second Chamber:
                                                                             Mr R. García-Valdecasas, President of Chamber, Ms
     Mr Bellamy, President of Chamber, Mr Kirschner and                     Tiili, Mr Azizi, Mr Moura Ramos and Mr Jaeger,
     Mr Kalogeropoulos , Judges;                                            Judges .


title: Action brought on 3 April 1995 by Tiziano Boggian against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-92/95)

text:
No C 159/24            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  24 . 6 . 95
1 . the Japanese Shipowners ' Association and the European            2 , the costs are reserved.
     Community Shipowners ' Association are granted leave
     to intervene in support of the applicants;
2 . the Freight Transport Association, the Association des
     Utilisateurs des Transports de Fret and the European
     Council of Transport Users ASBL are granted leave to                    ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     intervene in support of the defendant;                                                     of 27 April 1995
                                                                      in Case T-393/94 : P v. Commission of the European
3 , the applicants ' request for confidential treatment of                                      Communities i 1 )
     certain parts of the file is granted;
                                                                                (No need to give a decision)
                                                                                ( 95/C 159/51 )
4 , operation of Articles 1 , 2, 3 and 4 of Commission
     Decision 94/980/EC of 19 October 1994 relating to a
     proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the EC Treaty                                (Language of the case: French)
     (IV/34.446 — Trans-Atlantic Agreement) , in so far as
     they prohibit the applicants from jointly exercising             In Case T-393/94, P, represented by Marie Vicelli and
     rate-making authority in respect of the inland portions          Jean-Pierre Spitzer, of the Paris Bar, with an address for
     within the Community of through-intermodal transport             service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 21
     services, is suspended until delivery ofthe final judgment       Grand-Rue, against the Commission of the European
     of the Court of First Instance in the main action;               Communities ( Agent: J. Griesmar ) — application for the
                                                                      annulment of several decisions of the Commission reducing
5 . there is no need to rule on the application for suspension        the rates of reimbursement of hospital expenses to the
     of the operation of those Articles with regard to the            applicant — the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber ),
     conclusion of joint service contracts;                           composed of J. L. Cruz Vilaça, President, and H. Kirschner
                                                                      and A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; Registrar: H.Jung, made an
6 , the application for suspension of the operation of                order on 27 April 1995 of which the operative part is as
                                                                      follows :
     Article 5 of the Decision is dismissed;
7.   costs are reserved.                                               1 . there is no need to give a decision on the application;
(») OJ No L 376 , 31 . 12 . 1994 , p . 1 .                            2 , the defendant shall bear the costs.
                                                                       f 1 ) OJ No C 392 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .
                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
          OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        of 11 April 1995                              Action brought on 3 April 1995 by Tiziano Boggian against
                                                                                the Commission of the European Communities
in Case T-82/95 R: Carmen Gómez de Enterria v. European
                             Parliament                                                          ( Case T-92/95 )
                          ( 95/C 159/50 )                                                          ( 95/C 159/52
                 (Language of the case: French)                                         (Language of the case: Italian)
In Case T-82/95 R: Carmen Gômez de Enterria, an official               An action against the Commission of the European
of the European Parliament, residing in Luxembourg,                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
represented by Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an             Instance of the European Communities on 3 April 1 995 by
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis             Tiziano Boggian, an independent trader resident in
Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim v. European Parliament               Montagnana ( Padua, Italy), represented by Ivone
 ( Agents : G. Garzon Clariana and M. Peter ) — application            Cacciavillani of the Venice Bar, with an address for service
for suspension of the implementation of the decision of the            in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain Lorang, 51 Rue
President of the European Parliament of 19 December 1994               Albert I er .
retiring the applicant from her post pursuant to Article 50 of
the Staff Regulations — the President of the Court of First            The applicant claims that the Court should :
 Instance made an order on 1 1 April 1995 , the operative part
 of which is as follows :
                                                                       — annul Commission Decision No C(91 ) 1725 of 29 July
                                                                              1991 (not published ), approving and granting EEC
 1 , the application for interim measures is dismissed;                       financing for the ' Operational programme for the
 ---pagebreak--- 24 . 6 . 95              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 159/25
      development of rural areas in the Veneto Region' in so                    following the prior adjudication procedure under
      far as it concerns the 'measure ', contained in                           Article 8 of Decision No C(91 ) 1725 , adopted pursuant
      ' subprogramme 2 — Development of other economic                          to the framework Regulations (EEC ) No 2052/88 (2 )
      sectors and services ', entitled 'Measure 1 — Heading                     and ( EEC ) No 4253/88 ;
      1.10 : Reactivation of the former " GIBO " factory at
      Montagnana as the location for new activities and a               (c ) infringement of Article 14 ( 3 ) of Regulation ( EEC )
      service centre',                                                          No 4253/88 , and misuse of powers through failure to
                                                                                investigate and to state reasons : the proposal of the
— annul Commission Decision No C(93 ) 3752 of
                                                                                Veneto Region concerning Zaico SpA completely
                                                                                lacked the administrative mechanisms essential for
      9 December 1993 ( not published ) to the extent that it
                                                                                ensuring the effectiveness of the initiative . It follows
      increases the amount of Community financing for
                                                                                that the absence of any details in the programme as to
      Objective 5 (b ) of the Operational programme in
                                                                                how the financing was to be used should have
      relation to the measure contained in ' Subprogramme 2
      — Development of other economic sectors and services ',
                                                                                prevented the Commission from granting the aid
                                                                                requested .
      entitled 'Measure 1 — Heading 1.10 : Reactivation of the
      former " GIBO " factory at Montagnana as the location
      for new activities and a service centre ',                        Finally, the applicant argues that the measures in question
                                                                        conflict with Articles 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty, the
— annul all other measures connected therewith and/or                   freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide
                                                                        services .
      resulting therefrom, and order the Commission to pay
      the costs .
                                                                        (M OJ No L 374 , 31 . 12 . 1988 , p . 1 .
                                                                        ( 2 ) OJ No L 185 , 15 . 7 . 1988 , p . 9 .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant is the owner of a small to medium-sized
business in the Veneto Region, which carries on production
in the former ' GIBO' factory, which is situated in the
industrial and small trades estate of the Commune of
Montagnana , and which it occupies as tenant. He challenges             Action brought on 5 April 1995 by Didier Gambier against
the above Decisions in so far as they establish a financial                      the Commission of the European Communities
instrument, by way of contribution from the European                                               ( Case T-95/95 )
Regional Development Fund , for a project to reclaim,
                                                                                ( 95/C 159/53 )
rebuild and reuse the former ' GIBO ' kitchen factory, such
action being necessary, according to the Commission,
because the building had been dismantled in 1963 and not                                  (Language of the case: Frencb)
been rebuilt since .
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European
The applicant alleges:                                                  Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                        Instance of the European Communities on 5 April 1995 by
                                                                        Didier Gambier, residing at San Diego (United States of
( a ) infringement of Article 14 ( 3 ) of Regulation ( EEC )            America ), represented by Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liège
        No 4253/88 (*), erroneous assessment of the facts, and          Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
        misuse of powers through failure to investigate and to          Chambers of Evelyne Korn, 21 Rue de Nassau.
        state reasons: the Commission incorrectly ascertained
        the essential facts concerning the financial instrument it
        has approved . The former ' GIBO ' factory cannot be           The applicant claims that the Court should :
        said to have been dismantled in 1963 and not rebuilt
        since, given that the applicant carries on his business        — annul the decision of the Commission to reassign the
        inside the building, and that machines , administrative               applicant to the Commission, bringing to an end his
        offices and areas equipped for staff and materials are                secondment to ITER ( International Thermonculear
        situated there;                                                       Experimental Reactor ),
( b ) infringement of the Community provisions on public               — declare unlawful the decision not to take steps in order
        contracts : the contested decision is in serious and                  to remedy the applicant's situation following the entry
        manifest breach of Community rules, the Commission                    into office of a new Director of the ITER project, with all
        having thereby effectively endorsed a particular                      the legal consequences that such a declaration entails,
        internal ( and regional ) administrative practice, which
        freely attributes the execution of public works to             — order the Commission to pay to him, in respect of the
        private persons, in this case Zaico SpA, without                      first contested decision(s ), compensation in the amount


title: Case T-467/16: Action brought on 19 August 2016 — Flir Systems Trading Belgium v Commission

text:
               17.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/19

         Action brought on 19 August 2016 — Flir Systems Trading Belgium v Commission
   (Case T-467/16)
   (2016/C 383/27)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Flir Systems Trading Belgium (Meer, Belgium) (represented by: N. Reypens, C. Docclo and T. Verstraeten, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               join the present case and Case T-131/16 on account of the connection between them, for the purposes of the oral part of the procedure and of the judgment;

               —

               admit and uphold the pleas for annulment raised in the present application;

               —

               annul Articles 1 and 2 of the contested decision (1);

               —

               in the alternative, annul Article 2 of the contested decision in so far as it does not lay down transitional measures;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of this procedure.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in the identification of the legal acts that provide for the alleged Sate aid and an error of law in the interpretation of Article 1(d) of Regulation No 2015/1589 (2).

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an error of fact in the description of the reference system, a manifest error of assessment in the analysis of it and an error of law in the application of Article 107(1) TFEU and Article 1(a) of Regulation No 2015/1589.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging an error in the assessment of an economic advantage and an error of law in the application of Article 107(1) TFEU and Article 1(a) of Regulation No 2015/1589.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging an error in assessing the selectivity necessary to characterise the disputed regime as state aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU and Article 1(a) of Regulation No 2015/1589 and an error of assessment in analysing the mechanisms of the disputed regime.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging an error of assessment in the analysis of the justification of the conditions for the application of the disputed regime.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging an error of assessment when evaluating the alleged advantage derived from the disputed regime and a lack of precision in the examination of the disputed regime.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging a violation of the taxpayers’ legitimate expectations and legal certainty.

      (1)  Commission decision of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption implemented by Belgium [state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN)]

      (2)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015, L 248, p. 9)


title: Case C-245/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d'Etat (Belgium) — Section d'administration by judgment of that Court of 9 May 2003 in the case of Merck, Sharp and Dohme BV against État belge

text:
6.9.2003               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                      C 213/11
Appeal brought on 27 May 2003 by Maja srl against the                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d’Etat
judgment delivered on 12 March 2003 by the Second                         (Belgium) — Section d’administration by judgment of that
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                    Court of 9 May 2003 in the case of Merck, Sharp and
Communities in Case T-254/99 between Maja srl and                                           Dohme BV against État belge
         Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case C-245/03)
                        (Case C-238/03 P)
                                                                                (2003/C 213/18)
                          (2003/C 213/17)
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities by judgment of the Conseil d’État
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 12 March 2003                 (Belgium) — Section d’administration (Council of State —
by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the               Administrative Section) of 9 May 2003, received at the Court
European Communities in Case T-254/99 between Maja srl                    Registry on 10 June 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case
and Commission of the European Communities was brought                    of Merck, Sharp and Dohme BV against Etat belge on the
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                following question:
27 May 2003 by Maja srl, represented by P. Piva, R. Mastroianni
and G. Arendt, lawyers.
                                                                          Must the time-limit of 90 days, which may be extended for a
                                                                          further 90 days, mentioned in the first subparagraph of
                                                                          Article 6(1) of Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the
                                                                          prices of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion
—     set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance               in the scope of national health insurance systems (1), be
      (Second Chamber) of 12 March 2003 and consequently                  regarded as a merely indicative time-limit or as a mandatory
      annul also the measure appealed against at first instance;          time-limit and, if the time-limit is mandatory, what are the
                                                                          consequences of exceeding it as regards the response to be
—     order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings                 given to the application for inclusion of a medicinal product
      before the Court of Justice and at first instance.                  in the list of medicinal products covered by the health
                                                                          insurance system?
                                                                          Must exceeding the time-limit be deemed to constitute
Pleas and main arguments                                                  inclusion in the abovementioned list?
                                                                          (1 ) OJ L 40 of 11.02.1989, p. 8.
The appellant claims that the judgment of the Court of First
Instance is vitiated on the following grounds:
infringement of Regulation No 4028/86 ( 1) and implementing
Regulation No 1116/88 ( 2), as interpreted in the light of the
‘comitology’ decision; defective and illogical grounds; breach
of the principle of the right to a fair hearing and of
legal expectations; manifest inconsistency and contradiction;             Action brought on 17 June 2003 by the Commission of
                                                                           the European Communities against the French Republic
absence of correspondence between the remedy sought and
the judgment; breach of the obligation to state the reasons on
which the judgment is based, laid down in Article 33 of the                                        (Case C-258/03)
EC Statute of the Court of Justice as referred to in Article 46 of
the Statute itself; breach of the principle of rights of the
defence; breach of essential procedural requirements; breach                                       (2003/C 213/19)
of the general principles of delegated authority.
( 1) OJ 1986 L 376, p. 7.                                                 An action against the French Republic was brought before the
( 2) OJ 1988 L 112, p. 1.                                                 Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 June
                                                                          2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                          represented by M. Condou Durande, acting as Agent, with an
                                                                          address for service in Luxembourg.


title: Case T-465/09: Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2012 — Jurašinović v Council (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Request for access to reports of European Union observers present in Croatia from 1 to 31 August 1995 — Refusal to grant access — Risk of undermining the protection of international relations — Previous disclosure)

text:
               17.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2012 — Jurašinović v Council
   (Case T-465/09) (1)

   (Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Request for access to reports of European Union observers present in Croatia from 1 to 31 August 1995 - Refusal to grant access - Risk of undermining the protection of international relations - Previous disclosure)
   2012/C 355/47
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Ivan Jurašinović (Angers, France) (represented by: M. Jarry and N. Amara-Lebret, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: initially C. Fekete and K. Zieleśkiewicz, subsequently C. Fekete and J. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   By way of principal claim, annulment of the decision of 22 September 2009 by which the applicant was granted partial access to reports of European Union observers present in the Knin zone of Croatia on from 1 August to 31 August 1995

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Ivan Jurašinović to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.


title: Case T-93/08: Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 June 2008 — Cyprus v Commission

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/59

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 June 2008 — Cyprus v Commission
   (Case T-93/08) (1)

   (2008/C 223/109)

      Language of the case: Greek

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

      (1)  OJ C 142, 7.6.2008.


title: Case C-118/04: Actionbrought on 4 March 2004 by the Commission of theEuropean Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/30

         Action brought on 4 March 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
   (Case C-118/04)
   (2004/C 106/53)
   An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 March 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Luca Visaggio, acting as Agent.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2001/88/EC (1) of 23 October 2001 amending Directive 91/630/EEC (2) laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs or, in any event, by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) of that directive;

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The period for transposition of the directive expired on 1 January 2003.

      (1)  OJ L 316 of 1.12.2001, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ L 340 of 11.12.1991, p. 33.


title: Case T-585/14: Action brought on 4 August 2014  — Slovenia v Commission

text:
               20.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 372/19

         Action brought on 4 August 2014 — Slovenia v Commission
   (Case T-585/14)
   2014/C 372/24
   Language of the case: Slovenian

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Slovenia (represented by: L. Bembič, State Attorney)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision contained in the letter from the European Commission, Directorate-General for Budget, No. BUDG/B/03MV D (2014) 1782918, of 2 June 2014 in which, first, the applicant is declared to be financially responsible for the loss of traditional own resources for the EU budget, because sugar was imported outside the system of tariff import quotas and that the resources for that importation were not determined and in which, second, the applicant is ordered to make available to the EU budget an amount equivalent to the loss of traditional own resources amounting, in the event that the import licence was used to its fullest extent, to EUR 1 2 57  000;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its action, the applicant puts forward six pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea: manifest error of assessment

                           —

                           The Commission wrongly found, in the contested decision contained in the letter, that the loss of traditional own resources is due to the mistakes made by the importer in its application for the issue of an import licence and that the Slovenian authorities did not discover those mistakes in time.

                           —

                           The importer did indeed complete and correct its application in time and the errors occurred, in fact, in the recording of the data when the Agency of the Republic of Slovenia for the Agricultural Market and Rural Development transmitted the applications for the issue of an import licence in the Commission’s AMIS-Quota application, which was entirely the result of serious defects in the AMIS-Quota system.

               2.

               Second plea: breach of the rules concerning the Commission’s decision-making procedures

                           —

                           The letter containing the contested decision was signed by the Director of the Directorate General for Budget, even though it is the Commission, acting as a collegial body, which is competent to decide on the applicant’s financial responsibility for the loss of the EU’s traditional own resources.

               3.

               Third plea: inadequate statement of reasons and incorrect legal basis

                           —

                           The Commission did not provide an adequate statement of reasons for the contested decision in respect of the applicant’s financial responsibility with the result that it is not possible to check if it is correct and consistent with substantive law, thereby breaching Article 296 TFEU and the Commission’s internal procedural rules.

                           —

                           The Commission, moreover, did not provide an adequate legal basis to justify its decision that there was, in this case, a loss of traditional own resources and that the applicant would be financially responsible for such a loss.

               4.

               Fourth plea: infringement of the rights of defence and the right to be heard

                           —

                           The Commission did not inform the applicant, prior to the adoption of the contested decision, of all the elements of fact and law on which its decision is based, thereby infringing the principles of the rights of defence and the right to be heard.

               5.

               Fifth plea: the Commission’s failure of inspection

                           —

                           The applicant’s error in the communication concerning the application for issue of an import licence is a consequence of defects in the AMIS-quota electronic information system, which the Commission created and manages; accordingly the applicant is not responsible for the error made.

               6.

               Sixth plea: infringement of the principles of proportionality, legal certainty and the avoidance of unjust enrichment

                           —

                           The applicant contends that, in view of the fact that no loss of traditional own resources was proven, the imposition of financial responsibility for an error when encoding the data in the Commission’s defective computer system means that the EU will be unjustly enriched.

                           —

                           Moreover, the principle of legal certainty was infringed because there is no procedure for correcting mistakes for situations in which unjust enrichment may occur.

                           —

                           The applicant further argues that the legislation under which it is not possible to correct administrative errors committed in the context of a procedure for issuing import licences even though no market operator suffers a loss as a result of the error being corrected — and which results in the Member State becoming as a matter of course financially responsible — is also contrary to the principle of proportionality.

                           —

                           The Commission, by failing to bring to a close, within a reasonable period, the procedure for determining the applicant’s financial responsibility, also infringed the principle of legitimate expectations.


title: Case T-71/16 P: Appeal brought on 17 February 2016 by Carlo de Nicola against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 December 2015 in Case F-82/12 De Nicola v EIB

text:
               4.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/37

         Appeal brought on 17 February 2016 by Carlo de Nicola against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 December 2015 in Case F-82/12 De Nicola v EIB
   (Case T-71/16 P)
   (2016/C 118/42)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Carlo de Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: G. Ferabecoli, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Uphold the present appeal and, partially reversing the judgment under appeal, annul points 2 and 3 of the operative part, together with paragraphs 68 to 75 of the judgment itself;

               —

               Consequently, order the EIB to compensate Dr De Nicola for the damage suffered, as requested in the application initiating proceedings or, in the alternative, refer the case to another Chamber of the Civil Service Tribunal in order that it may, in a different formation, give a fresh decision on the annulled paragraphs;

               —

               Order the European Investment Bank to pay the costs.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The present appeal is brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (single Judge) of 18 December 2015 in De Nicola v European Investment Bank (F-82/12).
   The grounds of appeal and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-55/16 P De Nicola v European Investment Bank.
   The appellant argues, in particular, that the claim for damages in Case F-82/12 was wrongly treated as equivalent to the claim for damages in Case F-55/08, and that there was an incorrect finding of res judicata regarding some of the requests for compensation.


title: Case T-233/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 April 2008 — Netherlands v Commission (State aid — Directive 2001/81/EC — National measure establishing an emission trading scheme for nitrogen oxides — Decision finding the aid compatible with the common market — Admissibility — Advantage — Measure lacking selective character)

text:
               24.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 128/30

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 April 2008 — Netherlands v Commission
   (Case T-233/04) (1)

   (State aid - Directive 2001/81/EC - National measure establishing an emission trading scheme for nitrogen oxides - Decision finding the aid compatible with the common market - Admissibility - Advantage - Measure lacking selective character)
   (2008/C 128/64)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: H. Sevenster, J. van Bakel and M. de Grave, Agents)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. van Vliet, and V. Di Bucci, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by W.-D. Plessing and M. Lumma, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2003) 1761 final of 24 June 2003, relating to State aid N 35/2003 concerning the emission trading scheme for nitrogen oxides notified by the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision C(2003) 1761 final of 24 June 2003 relating to State aid N 35/2003 concerning the emission trading scheme for nitrogen oxides notified by the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

               2.

               Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

               3.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 275, 15.11.2003 (formerly case C-388/03).


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by order of the Juzgado Central de lo Penal de la Audiencia Nacional of 18 January 1995 in criminal proceedings against Oscar Weg (Case C-20/95)

text:
 No C 74/6           1 EN |               Official Journal of the European Communities                                   25 . 3 . 95
 (c) by the Commission delegate in not paying the Somalian           Action brought on 2 February 1995 by the Federal Republic
      part of the invoices for which the Italian part had been       of Germany against the Commission of the European
      paid.                                                                                Communities
                                                                                (Case C-23/95 )
 The Appellant submits that the Court of First Instance's
 assessment of its claim was wrong and that its dismissal of                                  ( 95/C 74/09 ) •
 the claim was unfounded .
 The Appellant also submits that the Court of First Instance         An action against the Commission of the European
 was wrong in considering that the Appellant had not                 Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
 produced evidence that the Commission's administration              European Communities on 2 February 1995 by the Federal
 failed to operate correctly.                                        Republic of Germany, represented by Ernst Roder
                                                                     (Ministerialrat), Bundesministerium fur Wirtschaft, Bonn,
 Second head of claim — the failure of the Commission to             D-53107.
pay compensation following termination of the contract
The Commission did not give adequate reasoning for its
 decisions and thus infringed the general principle of law laid      The applicant claims that the Court should :
 down in Article 190 of the Treaty.
The Appellant submits that Article 60 of the Financial              — declare void Articles 1 ( 2) and 2 of Commission
 Regulation applicable to the Fifth European Development                 Regulation (EEC ) No 2791/94 of 16 November 1994 on
 Fund and Article 93 ( 1 ) of the General Conditions were                the exceptional allocation of a quantity additional to the
incorrectly interpreted and applied and that there was an                tariff quota for imports of bananas in 1994 as a result of
incorrect appreciation of the Commission's duty to meet the              tropical storm Debbie (*);
Appellant's claims.
The Appellant also submits that Article 60 of the                   — order the defendant to pay the costs.
abovementioned Financial Regulation imposes on the
Commission a general duty to safeguard the interests of
Community enterprises working in unfavourable financial
environments and that the Commission failed to discharge             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
this duty.
Finally, the Appellant contends that the Court of First              Lack of a legal basis for the way in which the additional
Instance incorrectly assessed the fault committed by the            quantities have been allocated: Article 16 ( 3 ) of Council
Commission which led to the damage existing at the time of
termination of the contract.
                                                                    Regulation (EEC ) No 404/93 may support the increase in
                                                                    the import tariff quotas, but not a departure from the
                                                                    method of calculation laid down in Article 19 ( 1 ) of Council
                                                                    Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 on the common organization
                                                                    of the market in bananas; precisely in the event of an
                                                                    increase in the tariff quota in 'exceptional circumstances',
Reference for a preliminary ruling by order of the Juzgado          Article 19 (4) of the Council Regulation provides that the
Central de lo Penal de la Audiencia Nacional of 18 January          allocation should be made by the method laid down in
      1995 in criminal proceedings against Oscar Weg                Article 19 ( 1 ). If the Commission considers that it is not
                          (Case C-20/95 )                           adequate to compensate for the damage done by the storm,
                           ( 95/C 74/08 )                           it could ask the Council to alter the Regulation. Since the
                                                                    Commission is derogating from a Regulation expressly
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the              adopted by the Council, the measures cannot be regarded as
European Communities by order of the Juzgado Central de             implementing measures within the meaning of Article 20 of
lo Penal de la Audiencia Nacional ( Central Criminal Court,         the Council Regulation, either. Article 30 of the Council
National High Court) of 18 January 1955 , which was                 Regulation contemplates transitional measures only in
received at the Court Registry on 30 January 1995 , for a           order to overcome difficulties experienced in adapting the
preliminary ruling in criminal proceedings against Oscar            existing national market organization to the new EC banana
Weg.                                                                market rules . Storm damage is not confined to the period of
                                                                    adaptation or transition from one market organization to
                                                                    another.
The questions referred by the Juzgado Central del lo Penal
de la Audiencia Nacional to the Court of Justice for a
preliminary ruling are identical with those in Joined Cases
C-163/94 and C-165/94 I 1 ).                                        (In the alternative) Insufficient grounds (Article 190 of the
                                                                    EC Treaty). There is no indication of the extent of the
(!) OJ No C 218 , 6 . 8 . 1994, p . 14 .                            damage. If the damage is lost production in the amount of
                                                                    the additional quota the compensation is more than is
                                                                    necessary, because importers obtain more profit from


title: Case C-521/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 January 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — SOVAG — Schwarzmeer und Ostsee Versicherungs-Aktiengesellschaft v If Vahinkovakuutusyhtiö Oy (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 6(2) — Jurisdiction — Action on a warranty or guarantee or other third party proceedings brought by a third party against a party to judicial proceedings before the court seised of the original proceedings)

text:
               14.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/14

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 January 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — SOVAG — Schwarzmeer und Ostsee Versicherungs-Aktiengesellschaft v If Vahinkovakuutusyhtiö Oy
   (Case C-521/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 6(2) - Jurisdiction - Action on a warranty or guarantee or other third party proceedings brought by a third party against a party to judicial proceedings before the court seised of the original proceedings))
   (2016/C 098/17)
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Korkein oikeus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: SOVAG — Schwarzmeer und Ostsee Versicherungs-Aktiengesellschaft

      Defendant: If Vahinkovakuutusyhtiö Oy

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted to the effect that its scope includes an action brought by a third party, in accordance with national law, against the defendant in the original proceedings, and closely linked to those original proceedings, seeking reimbursement of compensation paid by that third party to the applicant in those original proceedings, provided that the action was not instituted solely with the object of removing that defendant from the jurisdiction of the court which would be competent in the case.

      (1)  OJ C 34, 2.2.2015.


title: Case T-635/16: Action brought on 1 September 2016 — IPA v Commission

text:
               21.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 428/17

         Action brought on 1 September 2016 — IPA v Commission
   (Case T-635/16)
   (2016/C 428/19)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: SC IPA SA (Bucharest, Romania) (represented by: L. Vasilescu, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the debit notes of 28 June 2016 Nos. 3241608864, in the amount of EUR 63 653,58, and 3241608865, in the amount of EUR 9 690,30, issued by the defendant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant argues that in essence, the dispute lies in the calculation of the indirect costs related to the contract that has the applicant as beneficiary. Thus, a few years after the contract completion, the Commission imposed a flawed formula for the computation of the indirect costs, that is, non-conforming to the contract terms and contrary to the generally accepted principles and practices in accounting management.
   The applicant contends that the Commission based its pretentions on an audit and agreed to all auditor findings, without noticing that the method of calculation of indirect costs applied by auditors violates: (i) the accounting and management principles and practices of the beneficiary that are also imposed by the contract as prevailing and (ii) the generally accepted principles and practices in accounting management.
   The applicant also alleges that the calculation methods for the contract indirect costs, used by the auditor and agreed by the Commission, were unjustifiably different from the accounting system of the beneficiary, while by contract all costs had to be determined in accordance with the usual accounting and management principle and practice of the beneficiary. The beneficiary’s accounting system was the only accepted accounting system for the contract, and there was no reason to replace or disapprove the beneficiary’s accounting procedures used for the computation of contract’s indirect costs.
   Finally it is alleged that, by the audit procedure, the auditor undervalued the real indirect costs for the contract, and the Commission, after agreeing in whole with the auditor’s conclusions, generated the debit notes of 28 June 2016 Nos. 3241608864, in the amount of EUR 63 653,58, and 3241608865, in the amount of EUR 9 690,30, to recover the differences in costs described in the audit.


title: Case T-70/10: Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2014  — Feralpi v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for concrete reinforcing bars in bars or coils — Decision finding an infringement of Article 65 CS after the expiry of the ECSC Treaty on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Fixing of prices and payment terms — Limiting or controlling output or sales — Infringement of essential procedural requirements — Lack of competence — Legal basis — Infringement of the rights of the defence — Principle of sound administration, proportionality and equality of arms — Criteria for attributing liability — Definition of the market — Infringement of Article 65 CS — Fines — Limitation period — Gravity — Duration)

text:
               2.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 34/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2014 — Feralpi v Commission
   (Case T-70/10) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for concrete reinforcing bars in bars or coils - Decision finding an infringement of Article 65 CS after the expiry of the ECSC Treaty on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Fixing of prices and payment terms - Limiting or controlling output or sales - Infringement of essential procedural requirements - Lack of competence - Legal basis - Infringement of the rights of the defence - Principle of sound administration, proportionality and equality of arms - Criteria for attributing liability - Definition of the market - Infringement of Article 65 CS - Fines - Limitation period - Gravity - Duration))
   (2015/C 034/24)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Feralpi Holding SpA (Brescia, Italy) (represented by: G. Roberti and I. Perego, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by R. Sauer and B. Gencarelli, subsequently by R. Sauer, R. Striani and T. Vecchi, and finally by R. Sauer and T. Vecchi, acting as Agents, assisted by P. Manzini, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 7492 final of 30 September 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 65 CS (Case COMP/37.956 — Reinforcing bars, readoption), as amended by Commission Decision C(2009) 9912 final of 8 December 2009, in which the Commission imposed a fine of EUR 10,25 million on the applicant for infringement of Article 65(1) CS.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Feralpi Holding SpA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.


title: Case T-210/03: Action brought on 11 June 2003 by Konstantinos Athanassopoulos and Others against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
2.8.2003               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 184/55
Action brought on 11 June 2003 by Nikolaos Andrikakis                      The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the
and Others against the Commission of the European                          applicants in support of their application are similar to those
                           Communities                                     of the applicants in Cases T-221/02 (1) and T-44/03 (2).
                          (Case T-209/03)                                  (1) OJ C 247, 12.10.02, p. 17.
                                                                           (2) OJ C 101, 26.04.03, p. 40.
                         (2003/C 184/114)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           Action brought on 11 June 2003 by Konstantinos Atha-
An action against the Commission of the European Commu-                    nassopoulos and Others against the Commission of the
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                                     European Communities
European Communities on 11 June 2003 by Nikolaos Andri-
kakis, residing in Brussels, and 9 other officials, represented by
G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti, lawyers, with an address for service                                     (Case T-210/03)
in Luxembourg.
                                                                                (2003/C 184/115)
The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
—     annul the decision of the competent hierarchical authority
      changing, with effect from a year not further specified
      (1993, 1996, 1997, or another year, and for the period               An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
      during which the applicants were officials of the Commis-            nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      sion of the European Communities), the procedure for                 European Communities on 11 June 2003 by Konstantinos
      calculating the annual expense of travelling to Greece in            Athanassopoulos, residing in Kraainem (Belgium), and 4 other
      respect of the journey via Brindisi, as taken into consid-           officials, represented by G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti, lawyers,
      eration for destinations in the greater Athens area;                 with an address for service in Luxembourg.
      or, in the alternative,
                                                                           The applicants claim that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the competent hierarchical authority           —     annul the decision of the competent hierarchical authority
      to reimburse, with effect from a year not further specified                changing, with effect from a year not further specified
      (1993, 1996, 1997, or another year, and for the period                     (1993, 1996, 1997, or another year, and for the period
      during which the applicants were officials of the Commis-                  during which the applicants were officials of the Commis-
      sion of the European Communities), the cost of the sea                     sion of the European Communities), the procedure for
      passage from Brindisi to various Greek frontier posts                      calculating the annual expense of travelling to Greece in
      (Corfu, Igoumenitsa, Patras) on the basis of an ‘aircraft                  respect of the journey via Brindisi, as taken into consid-
      type seat’ ticket;                                                         eration for the destination of Athens;
—     annul all the applicants' pay slips implementing the                       or, in the alternative,
      decisions annulment of which is sought;
                                                                           —     annul the decision of the competent hierarchical authority
—     reimburse to the applicants all the amounts not paid                       to reimburse, with effect from a year not further specified
      following implementation of the decisions annulment of                     (1993, 1996, 1997, or another year, and for the period
      which is sought, together with legal interest;                             during which the applicants were officials of the Commis-
                                                                                sion of the European Communities), the cost of the sea
                                                                                passage from Brindisi to various Greek frontier posts
—     make the appropriate ruling as to costs and order the                      (Corfu, Igoumenitsa, Patras) on the basis of an ‘aircraft
      Commission of the European Communities to pay those                        type seat’ ticket;
      costs.
                                                                           —     annul all the applicants' pay slips implementing the
                                                                                decisions annulment of which is sought;
                                                                           —     reimburse to the applicants all the amounts not paid
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                  following implementation of the decisions annulment of
                                                                                which is sought, together with legal interest;
The applicants in this case seek the annulment of the Commis-              —     make the appropriate ruling as to costs and order the
sion's decision changing the method of calculating annual                        Commission of the European Communities to pay those
travel expenses to Greece.                                                       costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 184/56               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                     2.8.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                    Removal from the register of Case T-377/02 (1)
The applicants in this case seek the annulment of the Commis-                                       (2003/C 184/117)
sion's decision changing the method of calculating annual
travel expenses to Greece.                                                                     (Language of the case: French)
The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the
applicants in support of their application are similar to those             By order of 15 May 2003 the President of the Second
of the applicants in Cases T-221/02 (1) and T-44/03 (2).                    Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                            Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                            T-377/02: ‘P’ v Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 247, 12.10.02, p. 17.
(2) OJ C 101, 26.04.03, p. 40.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 44 of 22.02.2003.
        Removal from the register of Case T-22/00 (1)
                         (2003/C 184/116)                                           Removal from the register of Case T-92/03 (1)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                                                 (2003/C 184/118)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
By order of 23 May 2003 the President of the Fourth
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case                   By order of 12 May 2003 the President of the Second
T-22/00: Enrico Sabbioni v Commission of the European                       Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities.                                                                Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                            T-92/03: Luis Escobar Guerrero v Commission of the European
                                                                            Communities.
(1) OJ C 122 of 29.04.2000.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 112 of 10.05.2003.


title: Case T-630/14: Order of the General Court of 24 September 2015 — Primo Valore v Commission

text:
               16.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/60

         Order of the General Court of 24 September 2015 — Primo Valore v Commission
   (Case T-630/14) (1)

   (2015/C 381/83)
   Language of the case: Italian
   The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 361, 13.10.2014.


20150731020616722015/C 270/056862013CJC27020150817EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL201506105511Case C-686/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen — Sweden) — X AB v Skatteverket (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 49 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Tax legislation — Corporation tax — Holdings for business purposes — Legislation of a Member State exempting capital gains and, by the same token, excluding deduction of capital losses — Transfer by a resident company of shares in a non-resident subsidiary — Capital loss resulting from a currency loss)
 ---documentbreak--- C2702015EN510120150610EN00055151Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen — Sweden) — X AB v Skatteverket
   (Case C-686/13) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 49 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Tax legislation — Corporation tax — Holdings for business purposes — Legislation of a Member State exempting capital gains and, by the same token, excluding deduction of capital losses — Transfer by a resident company of shares in a non-resident subsidiary — Capital loss resulting from a currency loss)’2015/C 270/05Language of the case: Swedish
      Referring court

   Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: X AB

      Defendant: Skatteverket

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 49 of the TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude the tax legislation of a Member State which, in principle, exempts capital gains on holdings for business purposes from corporation tax and, by the same token, excludes the deduction of capital losses on such holdings, even where those capital losses are due to currency losses.
   (
         1
      )	OJ C 71, 8.3.2014.


title: Case C-155/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 16 March 2016 — Sarval Sud-Est SAS, Siffda Bretagne SAS, Siffda Centre SAS, Siram SARL, Francisque Gay, Patrick Legras de Grandcourt v Association ATM Porc, Association ATM Avicole, Association ATM équidés Angee, Association ATM éleveurs de ruminants, Association ATM lapins Clipp, Association ATM palmipèdes gras — Cifog, Association ATM ponte — CNPO, Atemax France SAS, Monnard Jura SNC, Fédération nationale bovine (FNB), Fédération nationale porcine

text:
               6.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 16 March 2016 — Sarval Sud-Est SAS, Siffda Bretagne SAS, Siffda Centre SAS, Siram SARL, Francisque Gay, Patrick Legras de Grandcourt v Association ATM Porc, Association ATM Avicole, Association ATM équidés Angee, Association ATM éleveurs de ruminants, Association ATM lapins Clipp, Association ATM palmipèdes gras — Cifog, Association ATM ponte — CNPO, Atemax France SAS, Monnard Jura SNC, Fédération nationale bovine (FNB), Fédération nationale porcine
   (Case C-155/16)
   (2016/C 200/14)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Sarval Sud-Est SAS, Siffda Bretagne SAS, Siffda Centre SAS, Siram SARL, Francisque Gay, Patrick Legras de Grandcourt

      Respondents: Association ATM Porc, Association ATM Avicole, Association ATM équidés Angee, Association ATM éleveurs de ruminants, Association ATM lapins Clipp, Association ATM palmipèdes gras — Cifog, Association ATM ponte — CNPO, Atemax France SAS, Monnard Jura SNC, Fédération nationale bovine (FNB), Fédération nationale porcine

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 1 of Directive 2004/18/EC 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 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that associations governed by private law, established by the relevant professional organisations in order to conclude contracts for the provision of rendering services that are funded by the members of those organisations, who pay contributions for that purpose, are to be regarded as bodies governed by public law, in light of the criterion that such bodies must have been established for the specific purpose of meeting needs in the general interest not having an industrial or commercial character?

               2.

               Is Article 1 of Directive 2004/18 is to be interpreted as meaning that associations of that description, and in particular those which receive compulsory contributions, satisfy the criterion for classification as a body governed by public law relating to the exercise by the public authorities of management supervision when that economic and financial supervision of the State is external supervision of the economic activity and financial management of the undertakings and bodies that are subject to it and its purpose is to analyse the risks and assess the performance of those undertakings and bodies while protecting the financial interests of the State and when, in order to carry out his duties, the agent entrusted with the task of supervision enjoys full powers of documentary and on-site investigation, the undertaking or body under supervision is required to communicate to that agent all the information he may require in order to fulfil his duties, including information concerning subsidiaries within its scope of consolidation, the agent may, where appropriate, request any additional information, may attend, in an advisory capacity, meetings of the board of directors or supervisory board or other equivalent decision-making body and of any committees and commissions created by them, may attend meetings of the committees, commissions and all consultative bodies within the undertaking or body as well as annual general meetings and must receive, in the same manner as the members thereof, invitations to such meetings, agendas and all other documents that are to be sent out before each meeting?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114.