title: Case T-639/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Psara v Parliament

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/53

         Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Psara v Parliament
   (Case T-639/15)
   (2016/C 048/61)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Maria Psara (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul decision A(2015)8602 C of the European Parliament of 16 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

               —

               order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).


title: Case C-503/14: Action brought on 11 November 2014 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

text:
               19.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/20

      Action brought on 11 November 2014 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
      (Case C-503/14)
      (2015/C 016/30)
      Language of the case: Portuguese

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braga da Cruz and W. Roels, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: Portuguese Republic

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  Declare that the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 21 TFEU, 45 TFEU and 49 TFEU and Articles 28 and 31 of the EEA Agreement in adopting and maintaining in force legislation, in the form of Articles 10 and 38 of the Código do imposto sobre o rendimento das pessoas singulares (Law on the income tax of natural persons) (‘the CIRS’), pursuant to which a taxable person who (i) exchanges shares and transfers his place of residence abroad or (ii) transfers assets and liabilities relating to an activity carried out on an individual basis in return for shares in a non-resident company, must, in the former case, include, in relation to the transactions in question, any income not taxed in the last fiscal year in which the taxable person was still regarded as a resident taxpayer, whereas, in the latter case, he does not benefit from a deferment of tax resulting from the transaction in question;

                  —

                  Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

         Pleas in law:

                  1.

                  On the one hand, pursuant to Article 10(9)(a) of the CIRS, if the shareholder is no longer resident in Portugal, capital gains resulting from a share exchange will form part of the taxable income of the calendar year in which the change of place of residence occurred. Under that same article, the value of the capital gains corresponds to the difference between the actual value of the shares received and the value of the older shares at the time of their purchase. By contrast, if the shareholder is resident in Portugal, the value of the shares received is the same as that of those transferred, without prejudice to the taxation of any monetary sums paid for the shares which were transferred. That is to say, where a taxable person remains resident in Portugal a share exchange gives rise to the immediate taxation of the capital gains generated only and in so far as an additional monetary payment is made. If there is no such payment, the capital gains tax will be levied only if and when the shares received have been definitively divested. Pursuant to Article 10(10) of the CIRS, the same tax regime is applicable to the allocation of shares in the case of mergers or the division of companies, to which Article 74 of the Código do imposto sobre o rendimento das pessoas colectivas (Law on corporate taxation) applies.

                  2.

                  On the other hand, in accordance with Article 38(1)(a) of the CIRS, the transfer to an undertaking of assets and liabilities related to the exercise of an economic or professional activity by a natural person in exchange for shares is tax exempt at the time of transfer if, among other conditions, the legal person to which the assets and liabilities are transferred has its seat or registered office in Portugal. In that case, taxation occurs only when and if the legal person which received such assets and liabilities has divested itself of them. However, such a tax deferment does not apply if the legal person to which the assets and liabilities were transferred has its seat or registered office outside of Portugal. In that case, capital gains tax is immediately applicable.

         Main arguments:

                  1.

                  By its first plea in law the Commission considers that such taxation penalises those who decide to leave Portuguese territory, in that it treats such persons differently from those who remain in the country. The Commission is of the view that the deferment of taxation, in the case of profits made in exchanging shares, should not be reserved to cases in which the tax payer continues to reside in Portuguese territory whilst denied in cases in which the tax payer transfers his place of residence to another EU or EEA Member State. Consequently, the difference in treatment put in place by Article 10 of the CIRS is incompatible with Articles 21 TFEU, 45 TFEU and 49 TFEU and Articles 28 and 31 of the EEA Agreement. Moreover, the protection of the tax credits resulting from pending revenue should be assured in conformity with the principle of proportionality laid down in the case-law of the Court of Justice. In the present case, the Commission considers that the Portuguese legislation goes beyond what is necessary to attain the objectives of ensuring an efficient tax regime, and that the Portuguese legislation should apply the same rule irrespective of whether a natural person keeps his place of residence in Portuguese territory or not.

                  2.

                  By its second plea in law the Commission submits that the benefit granted by Article 38 of the CIRS should not, in the light of Article 49 TFEU and Article 31 of the EEA Agreement, be reserved to cases in which the company which receives the assets has its seat or registered office in Portugal. The Commission takes the view that Portugal should apply the same rule irrespective of whether the legal person to which the assets and liabilities have been transferred has its seat or registered office in Portuguese territory or elsewhere. On the same grounds as set out above in relation to the first plea in law, the Commission considers that Article 38 of the CIRS goes beyond what is necessary to attain the objective of ensuring an efficient tax regime. It is of the opinion that taxable persons who exercise their right to freedom of establishment by transferring assets and liabilities abroad in exchange for shares in a non-resident undertaking cannot be subject to taxation at an earlier point in time than is the case for those who carry out such operations with an undertaking based in Portugal.


title: Case T-333/16: Action brought on 15 June 2016 — Colgate-Palmolive v EUIPO (360°)

text:
               16.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/33

         Action brought on 15 June 2016 — Colgate-Palmolive v EUIPO (360o)
   (Case T-333/16)
   (2016/C 296/43)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Colgate-Palmolive Co. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: M. Zintler and A. Stolz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘360o’ — Application for registration No 14 042 188

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 April 2016 in Case R 2287/2015-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c), (2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 and of the rules of law relating to its application as set out in Article 65(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-707/15: Order of the General Court of 14 September 2016 — Souruh v Council

text:
               7.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 410/35

         Order of the General Court of 14 September 2016 — Souruh v Council
   (Case T-707/15) (1)

   (2016/C 410/60)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.


title: Case T-154/07: Action brought on 8 May 2007 — ThyssenKrupp Liften v Commission

text:
               7.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/35

         Action brought on 8 May 2007 — ThyssenKrupp Liften v Commission
   (Case T-154/07)
   (2007/C 155/64)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: ThyssenKrupp Liften BV (Krimpen aan den IJssel, Netherlands) (represented by: O.W. Brouwer and A.C.E. Stoffer, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the contested decision in so far as it relates to the applicant;

               —

               in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the applicant;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant is challenging Commission Decision C(2007) 512 final (Case COMP/E-1/38.823 — PO/Elevators and Escalators).
   In support of its application the applicant invokes the same pleas in law as those put forward in Case T-144/07 ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs v Commission.
   The applicant also submits that, by increasing the basic amount of the fine by a deterrence factor of 100 %, the Commission infringed Article 23(1) of Regulation No 1/2003 (1) and the guidelines for setting fines based thereon (2), as well as the principles of proportionality and equality. The applicant contends further that, contrary to Article 23(1) of Regulation No 1/2003 and the guidelines on fines, the Commission imposed a 50 % increase in the fine in respect of repeat offences.

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

      (2)  Commission notice: Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 and Article 65(5) of the ECSC Treaty (OJ 1998 C 9, p. 3).


title: Case T-375/03: Action brought on 14 November 2003 by Fachvereinigung Mineralfaserindustrie e. V. Deutsche Gruppe der EURIMA — European Insulation Manufacturers' Association against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
7.2.2004              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 35/11
Action brought on 3 November 2003 by the Land                            forms a part. Moreover, agriculture in the Province of Upper
Oberösterreich against the Commission of the European                    Austria is almost exclusively based on small farms, and a
                          Communities                                    further specific element is the constant increase in the area
                                                                         under organic farming and in farming businesses operating on
                                                                         an organic basis. The study carried out by Mr Werner Müller
                        (Case T-366/03)
                                                                         found that it was impossible for conventional, ecological, non-
                                                                         genetically modified crop production and natural flora to co-
                         (2004/C 35/17)                                  exist with wide-scale GMO cultivation, a set of circumstances
                                                                         which the Commission should have taken into account with
                                                                         regard to the specific structure of the agriculture of the region
                  (Language of the case: German)                         of Upper Austria.
                                                                         Finally, the applicant claims that the provisions notified to the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         Commission constitute a precautionary or preventive measure
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         in terms of Article 174(2) EC, and that because they will be in
European Communities on 3 November 2003 by the Land
                                                                         force for only three years the functioning of the internal
Oberösterreich (Province of Upper Austria, Austria), represent-
                                                                         market is affected — if at all — as little as possible; thus the
ed by F. Mittendorfer, lawyer.
                                                                         national measures may be assumed to be proportionate. The
                                                                         result is that the conditions laid down in Article 95(5) EC are
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              fulfilled, and so the Commission should have considered the
                                                                         national provisions notified to it to be in accordance with
                                                                         Community law.
—     annul Commission Decision C(2003) 3117 final of
      2 September 2003 by which national provisions on
      banning GMOs in Upper Austria, notified by Austria in
      accordance with Article 95(5) EC, were rejected;
—     order the Commission to pay the costs of the case.
                                                                         Action brought on 14 November 2003 by Fachvereini-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          gung Mineralfaserindustrie e. V. Deutsche Gruppe der
                                                                         EURIMA — European Insulation Manufacturers’ Associ-
                                                                         ation against the Commission of the European Communi-
The subject matter of the action is the Commission Decision                                             ties
of 2 September 2003 by which the national provisions
banning the use of genetically modified organisms in Upper
Austria were rejected.                                                                           (Case T-375/03)
The applicant claims that the Commission by that decision                                         (2004/C 35/18)
infringes the right of the Province of Upper Austria to bring
in, following the adoption by the Council or the Commission
of harmonisation measures, national provisions based on new                                (Language of the case: German)
scientific knowledge for the protection of the environment or
the working environment on grounds of a specific problem
for Austria which arose following the adoption of the harmon-
isation measures.                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on
                                                                         14 November 2003 by Fachvereinigung Mineralfaserindustrie
The applicant submits that the Commission did not enable the             e. V. Deutsche Gruppe der EURIMA — European Insulation
Province of Upper Austria to be informed of the opinion of               Manufacturers’ Association, of Frankfurt am Main (Germany),
the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) of 4 July 2003, on             represented by T. Schmidt-Kötters, lawyer.
which the Commission’s decision was based, and to comment
thereon, during the hearing of the interested parties. The
decision-making process did not comply with constitutional               The applicant claims that the Court should:
principles relating to proper procedure and therefore consti-
tuted an infringement of essential procedural requirements.
                                                                         —      annul Commission Decision C(2003) 1473 final of 9 July
                                                                                2003 on State aid No N 694/2002 — Germany, measure
Furthermore, the applicant submits that the national pro-                       to promote the use of insulating materials produced from
visions satisfy the requirements for Article 95(5) EC to apply.                 renewable raw materials;
They constitute a measure to protect the conservation of the
natural environment, of which biodiversity in a broad sense              —      order the Commission to pay the costs of the case.
 ---pagebreak--- C 35/12                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                          7.2.2004
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —     annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the
By the contested decision the Commission decided that                           Office for Harmonisation of 27 August 2003 in Case
Germany’s measure to promote the use of insulating materials                    R 105/2002-4;
produced from renewable raw materials is to be considered
compatible with the EC Treaty. The Commission reached this                —     order the Office to pay the costs.
decision on the basis that, although the measure constitutes
aid, it is, under Article 87(3)(c) EC, compatible with the EC
Treaty since the promoted insulating materials produced from
renewable raw materials clearly have advantages for the
environment over ‘traditional’ insulating materials.                      Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          Community trade mark          Word mark ‘Cloppenburg’ —
The applicant submits that the decision infringes essential               sought:                       Application No 1920685 in
procedural requirements. The Commission should have                                                     respect of Class 35 — retail trade
initiated the preliminary examination procedure in accordance                                           services.
with Article 88(2) EC and Article 4(4) of the regulation on
State aid procedure, since it encountered objectively serious             Decision         contested    Examiner’s refusal to register.
difficulties in assessing the measure.                                    before the Board of
                                                                          Appeal:
Furthermore, the decision infringes Article 87 EC. The Com-               Decision of the Board of      Dismissal    of   the   applicant’s
mission’s decision that the measure is compatible with the                Appeal:                       appeal.
common market under Article 87(3)(c) EC because of clear
advantages for the environment was based upon insufficient                Pleas in law:                 Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of
findings of fact.                                                                                Regulation No 40/94 (1).
Finally the applicant claims that the decision unjustifiably              (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
disadvantages those insulating materials designated by the                    Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
Commission as ‘traditional’, especially mineral-based insulating
materials, but also insulating materials produced from renew-
able raw materials which do not carry the quality mark
‘natureplus’. The decision thus infringes the principles of
proportionality and non-discrimination and therefore infringes
fundamental principles of Community law.
                                                                          Action brought on 18 November 2003 by Miles Hand-
                                                                          elsgesellschaft International mbH against the Office for
                                                                          Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                                Designs)
Action brought on 17 November 2003 by Peek & Clop-                                                 (Case T-385/03)
penburg KG against the Office for Harmonisation in the
         Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                                (2004/C 35/20)
                         (Case T-379/03)                                  (Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
                                                                          of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was
                          (2004/C 35/19)                                                          submitted: German)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                          An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                          Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
                                                                          Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal            18 November 2003 by Miles Handelsgesellschaft International
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the                   mbH, Norderstedt (Germany), represented by A. Deutsch,
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                    lawyer. Biker Miles Motorrad Handels- und Vertriebsgesell-
17 November 2003 by Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf                     schaft mbH, Berlin, was also a party to the proceedings before
(Germany), represented by U. Hildebrandt, lawyer.                         the Board of Appeal.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 12 November 1996 in Case C-84/94: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Council of the European Union (Council Directive 93/104/EC concerning certain aspects of the organization of working time - Action for annulment)

text:
No C 9/ 10             1 EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    11 . 1 . 97
Ragnemalm, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-                    Bravo-Ferrer Delgado, Abodago del Estado ), the
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on                   Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
7 November 1996, in which it:                                           Nicholas Khan ), and the Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: Jan
                                                                        Devadder) — application for the annulment of Council
1 . Declares that, by not adopting and bringing into force              Directive 93/ 104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning
      within the prescribed periods the laws, regulations and           certain aspects of the organization of working time (2 )
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with:               and, in the alternative, of Article 4, the first and second
      — Commission Directive 93/48/EEC of 23 June 1993                  sentences of Article 5 , Article 6 (2 ) and Article 7 of that
          setting out the schedule indicating the conditions            Directive — the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez
          to be met by fruit plant propagating material and             Iglesias, President, G. F. Mancini , J. C. Moitinho de
          fruit plants intended for fruit production, pursuant          Almeida ( Rapporteur), J. L. Murray and L. Sevón
          to Council Directive 92/34/EEC,                               ( Presidents of Chambers ), C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G.
                                                                        Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet,
      — Commission Directive 93/49/EEC of 23 June 1993                  G. Hirsch, P. Jann and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; P. Leger,
          setting out the schedule indicating the conditions            Advocate-General ; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
          to be met by ornamental plant propagating                     Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 November 1996 , in
          material and ornamental plants pursuant to                    which it:
          Council Directive 91 /682/EEC,
      — Council Directive 93/52/EEC of 24 June 1993                     1 . Annuls the second sentence of Article 5 of Council
          amending Directive 89/556/EEC on animal health                      Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993
          conditions governing intra- Community trade in                      concerning certain aspects of the organization of
          and importation from third countries of embryos                     working time.
          of domestic animals of the bovine species,
                                                                        2 . Dismisses the remainder of the application.
      — Commission Directive 93/61 /EEC of 2 July 1993
          setting out the schedules indicating the conditions
                                                                        3 . Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
          to be met by vegetable propagating and planting
                                                                              Northern Ireland to pay the costs.
          material, other than seed pursuant to Council
          Directive 92/33/EEC,
                                                                        4 . Orders the Kingdom of Belgium, the Kingdom of
      the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations               Spain and the Commission of the European
      pursuant to Article 10 of Directive 93/48/EEC,                          Communities to bear their own costs.
      Article 8 of Directive 93/49/EEC, Article 2 of
      Directive 93/52/EEC and Article 7 of Directive 93/61 /            0 ) OJ No C 120 , 30 . 4 . 1994 , p. 13 .
      EEC.                                                              ( 2 ) OJ No L 307, 13 . 12 . 1993 , p . 18 .
2 . Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
0)    OJ No  C 315 , 25 . 11 . 1995 , p . 11
(2 )  OJ No L 250, 7. 10. 1993 , p . 1 .
(3 )  OJ No L 250, 7. 10 . 1993 , p. 9.
(4 )  OJ No L 175, 19 . 7. 1993 , p. 21 .                               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura
(5 )  OJ No L 250, 7. 10 . 1993 , p. 19 .                               Circondariale di Pavia by order of that court of
(6 )  OJ No L 259, 18 . 10 . 1993 , p . 1 .                             17 October 1996 in the criminal proceedings pending
                                                                        before that court against Luigi Bazzan, Adriano Filippo
                                                                                Calvini and Agostino Traverso
                                                                                ( Case C-359/96 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 9/18 )
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        of 12 November 1996
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of
in Case C-84/94: United Kingdom of Great Britain and                    the European Communities by order of the Pretura
     Northern Ireland v. Council of the European Union ( ' )            Circondariale di Pavia ( Pavia District Court) of 17 October
(Council Directive 93/104/EC concerning certain aspects                 1996, which was received at the Court Registry on
of the organization of working time — Action for                        4 November 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the criminal
                               annulment)                               proceedings pending before that court against Luigi
                                                                        Bazzan, Adriano Filippo Calvini and Agostino Traverso on
                               ( 97/C 9/17)                             the questions whether Article 1 ( 1 ) of Law No 1369 of
                 (Language of the case: English)                        23 October 1960, in conjunction with Article 11 ( 1 ) of
                                                                        Law No 264 of 29 April 1949, is compatible with the
In Case C-84/94 : United Kingdom of Great Britain and                   Community principles enshrined in Articles 48 , 49, 54 and
Northern Ireland (Agent: John E. Collins, assisted by                   90 of the EC Treaty and whether those principles are
Michael J. Beloff and Eleanor Sharpston) v. Council of the              directly applicable, with the result that the Italian
European Union (Agents: Antonio Sacchettini, Jill Aussant               legislation must be disapplied.
and Sophia Kyriakopoulou), supported by the Kingdom of
Spain (Agents : Alberto Navarro Gonzalez and Miguel


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 10 November 1998 in Case C-360/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Arnhem): Gemeente Arnhem and Gemeente Rheden v. BFI Holding BV (Public service contracts - Meaning of contracting authority - Body governed by public law)

text:
19.12.98               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 397/13
     by the latter State as driving without a licence and            and K. M. Ioannou, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,
     thus rendered punishable by imprisonment or a fine.             Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
                                                                     judgment on 29 October 1998, in which it:
2. A national of a non-member country who holds a
     valid Community model driving licence issued by one             1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the
     Member State, who has taken up normal residence in                   prescribed period, the laws, regulations and
     another Member State, but who has not exchanged his                  administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     driving licence within the one-year period prescribed                Council Directive 92/29/EEC of 31 March 1992 on
     by the first subparagraph of Article 8(1) of Directive               the minimum safety and health requirements for
     80/1263/EEC, is entitled to rely directly on                         improved medical treatment on board vessels, the
     Articles 1(2) and 8(1) of Council Directive 91/439/                  Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
     EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences in order to                  obligations thereunder.
     challenge the imposition, in the Member State in
     which he has established his new residence, of a term
     of imprisonment or a fine for driving without a                 2. Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the
     licence. Community law does not prevent a court of                   costs.
     such a Member State, by reason of the principle that
     forms part of national law in certain Member States of          (1) OJ C 55, 20.2.1998.
     the retroactive effect of more favourable provisions of
     criminal law, from applying the aforesaid provisions of
     Directive 91/439/EEC even where the offence took
     place before the date set for compliance with that
     directive.
(1) OJ C 252, 16.8.1997.                                                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 10 November 1998
                                                                     in Case C-360/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                     the Gerechtshof te Arnhem): Gemeente Arnhem and
                                                                                Gemeente Rheden v. BFI Holding BV (1)
                                                                     (Public service contracts Ð Meaning of contracting
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                         authority Ð Body governed by public law)
                       (Fourth Chamber)                                                      (98/C 397/21)
                      of 29 October 1998
in    Case C-410/97: Commission of the European                                      (Language of the case: Dutch)
       Communities v. Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          Failure to transpose Directive 92/29/EEC)
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
                         (98/C 397/20)
                                                                     In Case C-360/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
                 (Language of the case: French)                      of the EC Treaty from the Gerechtshof (Regional Court of
                                                                     Appeal), Arnhem (Netherlands), for a preliminary ruling
                                                                     in the proceedings pending before that court between
                                                                     Gemeente Arnhem and Gemeente Rheden and BFI
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       Holding BV Ð on the interpretation of Articles 1(b) and 6
          published in the European Court Reports)                   of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating
                                                                     to the coordination of procedures for the award of public
                                                                     service contracts (OJ L 209, 1992, p. 1) Ð the Court,
In Case C-410/97: Commission of the European                         composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, P. J. G.
Communities (Agent: Marie Wolfcarius) v. Grand Duchy                 Kapteyn, J.-P. Puissochet and P. Jann (Rapporteur)
of Luxembourg (Agent: Nicholas Schmit) Ð application                 (Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho
for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws,                de Almeida, D. A. O. Edward, L. Sevón, M. Wathelet, R.
regulations and administrative provisions necessary to               Schintgen and K. M. Ioannou, Judges; A. La Pergola,
comply with Council Directive 92/29/EEC of 31 March                  Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal
1992 on the minimum safety and health requirements for               Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
improved medical treatment on board vessels (OJ L 113,               10 November 1998, in which it has ruled:
30.4.1992, p. 19), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has
failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive Ð the
Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P. J. G. Kapteyn,               1. The second subparagraph of Article 1(b) of Council
President of the Chamber, H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur)                       Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the
 ---pagebreak--- C 397/14              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     19.12.98
     coordination of procedures for the award of public              Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981 on the
     service contracts must be interpreted as meaning that           common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector
     the legislature drew a distinction between needs in the         (OJ L 177, 1.7.1981, p. 4), and Council Regulation (EEC)
     general interest not having an industrial or commercial         No 2225/86 of 15 July 1986 laying down measures for
     character and needs in the general interest having an           the marketing of sugar produced in the French overseas
     industrial or commercial character.                             departments and for the equalisation of the price
                                                                     conditions with preferential raw sugar (OJ L 194,
                                                                     17.7.1986, p. 7) Ð the Court (Fourth Chamber),
2. The term needs in the general interest, not having an            composed of: P. J. G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber,
     industrial or commercial character' does not exclude            H. Ragnemalm and K. M. Ioannou (Rapporteur), Judges;
     needs which are or can be satisfied by private                  N. Fennelli, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
     undertakings as well.                                           given a judgment on 12 November 1998, in which it has
                                                                     ruled:
3. The status of a body governed by public law is not
     dependent on the relative importance, within its                In an industrial complex that includes:
     business as a whole, of the meeting of needs in the
     general interest not having an industrial or commercial
     character. It is likewise immaterial that commercial            Ð installations which first process sugar beet and extract
     activities may be carried out by a separate legal person             the sugar-bearing liquids, and
     forming part of the same group or concern as it.
                                                                     Ð installations which then convert into white sugar the
4. The second subparagraph of Article 1(b) of Directive                   liquids and syrups in question, which are enriched by
     92/50/EEC must be interperted as meaning that the                    the addition of raw cane sugar from the French
     existence or absence of needs in the general interest                overseas departments,
     not having an industrial or commercial character must
     be appraised objectively, the legal form of the
     provisions in which those needs are mentioned being             the latter installations cannot be regarded, for the
     immaterial in that respect.                                     processing of raw cane sugar from the French overseas
                                                                     departments, either permanently or intermittently, as a
                                                                     production unit' or as a refinery' within the meaning of
(1) OJ C 388, 21.12.1996.
                                                                     the third subparagraph of Article 9(4) of Council
                                                                     Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981 on the
                                                                     common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector,
                                                                     as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1482/85 of
                                                                     23 May 1985.
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                (1) OJ C 294, 5.10.1996.
                       (Fourth Chamber)
                     of 12 November 1998
in Case C-269/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal Administratif de Paris): Sucreries et
Raffineries d'Erstein SA v. Fonds d'Intervention et de                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
        ReÂgularisation du MarcheÂ du Sucre (FIRS) (1)
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
(Council Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 and (EEC)
No 2225/86 Ð Aid for the marketing of cane sugar                                         of 12 November 1998
produced in the French overseas departments Ð Concept                in Case C-352/96: Italian Republic v. Council of the
                           of refinery)                                                   European Union (1)
                         (98/C 397/22)                               (Action for annulment Ð Regulation (EC) No 1522/96 Ð
                                                                     Introduction and administration of certain tariff quotas
                 (Language of the case: French)                                   for imports of rice and broken rice)
                                                                                (98/C 397/23)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                                   (Language of the case: Italian)
In Case C-269/96: reference to the Court under Article 177             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal Administratif, Paris                        published in the European Court Reports)
(France) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
pending before that court between Sucreries et Raffineries
d'Erstein SA and Fonds d'Intervention et de ReÂgularisation          In Case C-352/96: Italian Republic (Agent: Umberto
du MarcheÂ du Sucre Ð on the interpretation of Council               Leanza, assisted by Danilo Del Gaizo) v. Council of the


title: Case F-27/09: Action brought on 27 March 2009 — Ingo Hanschmann v Europol

text:
               18.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 167/25

         Action brought on 27 March 2009 — Ingo Hanschmann v Europol
   (Case F-27/09)
   2009/C 167/46
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Ingo Hanschmann (The Hague, Netherlands) (represented by: P. de Casparis, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of 12 June 2008 informing the applicant that it was impossible to offer him a permanent post, along with the decision of 7 January 2009 rejecting the complaint brought against the first decision.

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of 12 June 2008 by which the defendant indicated to the applicant that it was unable to offer him a permanent position, along with the complaint decision of 7 January 2009 rejecting the applicant’s submissions against the decision of 12 June 2008;

               —

               order Europol to pay the costs.


title: Case T-213/12: Action brought on 23 May 2012 — Elitaliana v Eulex Kosovo and Starlite Aviation Operations

text:
               7.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/20

         Action brought on 23 May 2012 — Elitaliana v Eulex Kosovo and Starlite Aviation Operations
   (Case T-213/12)
   2012/C 200/40
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Elitaliana SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: R. Colagrande, lawyer)

      Defendants: Eulex Kosovo — European Union Rule of Law Mission (Pristina, Republic of Kosovo) and Starlite Aviation Operations (Dublin, Ireland)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the measures adopted by Eulex — the content and date of which are unknown to the applicant — which resulted in the award of the contract in tendering procedure ‘EuropeAid/131516/D/SER/XK — Helicopter Support to the EULEX Mission in Kosovo (PROC/272/11)’ to the company Starlite Aviation Operations, communicated by Eulex by letter of 29 March 2012 (received on that date by e-mail), and all previous and subsequent measures, whether related or subordinate, in particular, if appropriate, Note 2012-DAS-0392 of 17 April 2012, by which Eulex refused to grant the applicant access to the tendering documents requested on 2 April 2012;

               —

               Order Eulex to pay to the applicant compensation for the loss suffered (in a specific form or commensurate amount) as set out at paragraphs 37 et seq. [of the application];

               —

               Order Eulex to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present action is brought principally against the measures adopted by Eulex which resulted in the award of the contract in tendering procedure ‘EuropeAid/131516/D/SER/XK — Helicopter Support to the EULEX Mission in Kosovo (PROC/272/11)’ to the company Starlite Aviation Operations and all previous and subsequent measures, whether related or subordinate. The applicant claims compensation for the resulting loss.
   The applicant relies on a single plea in law in support of its claim, alleging infringement and/or misapplication of the Notice published on 18 October 2011, with reference to Articles 46 et seq. of Directive 18/2004/EC; (1) infringement of the general principles of transparency, proportionality and equal treatment, laid down in the ‘Practical Guide to contract procedures for EU external actions’ (Prag), to which the tendering procedure was subject; and infringement of the general principle that effective competition should be guaranteed with regard to the standards to be laid down for the service to be procured.
   It is submitted in that regard that the contract was awarded to a tenderer that did not posses the technical requirements stipulated in the Notice.

      (1)  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.


title: Case C-521/13 P: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 September 2014 — Think Schuhwerk GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 7(1)(b) — No distinctive character — Red aglets on shoe laces — Article 122 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
               1.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 431/6

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 September 2014 — Think Schuhwerk GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-521/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 7(1)(b) - No distinctive character - Red aglets on shoe laces - Article 122 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded))
   (2014/C 431/10)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Think Schuhwerk GmbH (represented by: M. Gail, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Think Schuhwerk GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.


title: Case T-49/07: Action brought on 20 February 2007 — Fahas v Council

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/43

         Action brought on 20 February 2007 — Fahas v Council
   (Case T-49/07)
   (2007/C 95/90)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Sofiane Fahas (Milkendorf, Germany) (represented by: F. Zillmer, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Decision 2002/848/EC of 28 October 2002 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 and repealing Decision 2002/460/EC, by which the Council drew up an updated list of persons, groups and entities to which that regulation applies, and all decisions adopted in the meantime by the Council of the European Union in the meantime including Decision 2006/1008/EC of 21 December 2006, which is currently in force, in so far as they concern the applicant;

               —

               declare all aforementioned decisions up to and including Decision 2006/1008/EC of 21 December 2006 inapplicable to the applicant;

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay the applicant damages for the harm suffered, the amount to be determined at the Court's discretion, but at least EUR 2 000;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By its application, the applicant challenge Decision 2006/1008/EC (1) and all previous decisions since Decision 2002/848/EC (2), in so far as he is expressly listed in the contested legislation.
   In support of his claim, the applicant alleges infringement of his right to a fair hearing and his right to effective legal protection. In addition, Decision 2006/1008/EC is unfounded and thus is in breach of Article 253 EC.

      (1)  Council Decision 2006/1008/EC of 21 December 2006 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism (OJ 2006 L 379, p. 123).

      (2)  Council Decision 2002/848/EC of 28 October 2002 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2002/460/EC (OJ 2002 L 295, p. 12).


title: Case T-61/99: Action brought on 1 March 1999 by Adriatica di Navigazione against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
5.6.1999               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 160/25
According to the applicant’s wife, the fact that she does not             — in the alternative, annul or reduce the fine imposed on the
reside in the United Kingdom means that she does not qualify                   applicant,
for cover against the risks of sickness and accidents, and is not
therefore eligible for benefits of the same nature and of the             — order the Commission to pay the costs.
same level by virtue of any other legal provision or regulations.
The applicant paid two invoices amounting to a total of BEF               Pleas in law and main arguments
122 268 by way of settlement of health care expenses incurred
in relation to his wife; he then sought reimbursement from the            The applicant, a publicly-owned shipping company, is the only
Brussels Settlements Office of the Sickness Insurance Scheme.             Italian company which provides a daily ferry service for cars,
The applicant was thereupon informed that, since his wife had             passengers and goods all the year round between Italy
been retired since 1995, she was deemed to be covered by her              and Greece. In particular, it provides that service on the
own sickness insurance scheme, to which claims should be                  Brindisi/Corfu/Igoumenitsa/Patras route.
directed in the first instance, with the Community scheme
being involved only on a ‘top-up’ basis.
                                                                          The applicant seeks annulment of the Commission Decision
                                                                          of 9 December 1998 relating to a proceeding under Article 85
The applicant contests, in particular, the formal decision of the         of the EC Treaty (IV/34466 — Greek Ferry Boats), Article 1 of
Settlements Office refusing to provide primary cover for his              which finds that the applicant has joined in an agreement with
wife.                                                                     the principal Greek ferry operators between Italy and Greece,
                                                                          fixing the rates to be applied to lorries on the Patras-Bari and
In support of his action, he pleads:                                      Patras-Brindisi lines.
— infringement of article 72 (1) of the Staff Regulations,                In support of its claims, the applicant puts forward the
                                                                          following pleas in law:
— the unlawfulness of article 3 of the Rules on sickness
    insurance for officials of the European Communities,                  — infringement of article 190 of the Treaty so far as concerns
                                                                               the lack of reasoning in the definition of the relevant
— the unlawfulness of the decision of the Central Office                       market and the contradiction between the reasons and the
    laying down conditions in respect of income enabling                       operative part,
    spouses to qualify for supplementary reimbursement from
    the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme; and, lastly,                     — infringement of article 85 of the Treaty and article 11 of
                                                                               Council Regulation (EEC) No 4056/86 of 22 December
— a manifest error of assessment.                                              1986 laying down detailed rules for the application of
                                                                               articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty to maritime transport (1),
                                                                               in so far as the Commission charges the applicant with
                                                                               joining an alleged agreement incompatible with compe-
                                                                               tition where there is no evidence for such a charge,
                                                                          — misapplication of Article 85, as regards the evaluation of
                                                                               the evidence concerning its conduct, and in particular
Action brought on 1 March 1999 by Adriatica di Naviga-                         concerning the fact that it did not take part in any actions
zione against the Commission of the European Communi-                          contrary to the principles of the law on competition,
                                ties
                                                                          — breach of the principles of equity and equal treatment, in
                                                                               that the Commission excluded responsibility on the part
                          (Case T-61/99)                                       of several undertakings in a similar situation,
                         (1999/C 160/47)                                  — absence of any appreciable damage to trade between
                                                                               Member States,
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                        — in the alternative, incorrect characterisation of any contra-
                                                                               vention committed.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                In the further alternative, if the applicant were to be held to
European Communities on 1 March 1999 by Adriatica di                      have infringed article 85, as alleged, it claims infringement of
Navigazione SpA, represented by Umberto Ferraro, of the                   article 19 of Regulation (EEC) No 4056/86, in that the
Genoa Bar, and Mario Siragusa, of the Rome Bar, with an                   Commission imposed a fine and in any event made an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger,            incorrect assessment of the gravity and duration of the
Hoss & Prussen, 2, place Winston Churchill.                               contravention, setting the fine at ECU 980 000.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               (1) OJ L 378, 31.12.1986, p. 4.
— annul in whole or in part the contested decision in so far
    as it concerns the applicant,


title: Case T-525/09: Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2011 — MIP Metro v OHIM — Metronia (METRONIA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark METRONIA — Earlier national figurative mark METRO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               15.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/6

         Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2011 — MIP Metro v OHIM — Metronia (METRONIA)
   (Case T-525/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark METRONIA - Earlier national figurative mark METRO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2011/C 305/07
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Metronia, SA (Madrid, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 October 2009 (Case R 1315/2006-1), concerning opposition proceedings between MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG and Metronia, SA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.


title: Case T-103/14: Action brought on 17 February 2014 — Frucona Košice v Commission

text:
               14.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/53

         Action brought on 17 February 2014 — Frucona Košice v Commission
   (Case T-103/14)
   2014/C 112/69
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Frucona Košice a.s. (Košice, Slovakia) (represented by: K. Lasok, QC, B. Hartnett, Barrister, O. Geiss, lawyer, and J. Holmes, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claim that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the Commission decision C (2013) 6261 dated 16 October 2013 on State Aid No SA.18211 (C 25/2005) (ex NN 21/2005) addressed to the Slovak Republic; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision was adopted in breach of the rights of defence.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in recital 83 of the contested decision.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in fact and law in concluding that it would have been more advantageous for the Slovak tax authorities to initiate a bankruptcy procedure (recitals 88-119 of the contested decision).

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in concluding that the tax execution procedure would have led to a higher return than under the arrangement procedure.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of  20 October 2005  in Case C-247/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven in Transport Maatschappij Traffic BV v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken (Community Customs Code — Repayment or remission of import or export duties — Meaning of  legally owed )

text:
               8.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/8

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 20 October 2005
   in Case C-247/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven in Transport Maatschappij Traffic BV v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken (1)

   (Community Customs Code - Repayment or remission of import or export duties - Meaning of ‘legally owed’)
   (2006/C 86/13)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case C-247/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands), made by decision of 28 May 2004, received at the Court on 11 June 2004, in the proceedings between Transport Maatschappij Traffic BV and Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken, the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, J. Makarczyk (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen and J. Klčcka, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 20 October 2005, in which it ruled:
   For the purposes of the first subparagraph of Article 236(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, import duties or export duties are legally owed where a customs duty has been incurred within the conditions laid down by Chapter 2 of Title VII of that regulation and where the amount of those duties could be determined by the application of the Common Customs Tariff of the European Communities in accordance with the provisions of Title II of that regulation.
   The amount of the import duties or export duties remains legally owed within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 236(1) of Regulation No 2913/92 even where that amount has not been communicated to the debtor in accordance with Article 221(1) of that regulation.

      (1)  OJ C 217 of 28.8.2004.


title: Case C-274/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 December 2013 — Telefónica SA v European Commission (Appeal — Action for annulment — Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU — Right to bring an action — Standing to bring proceedings — Natural or legal persons — Act of individual concern to them — Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures — Decision declaring a State aid scheme incompatible with the common market — Right to effective judicial protection)

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/12

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 December 2013 — Telefónica SA v European Commission
   (Case C-274/12 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Action for annulment - Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU - Right to bring an action - Standing to bring proceedings - Natural or legal persons - Act of individual concern to them - Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures - Decision declaring a State aid scheme incompatible with the common market - Right to effective judicial protection)
   2014/C 52/19
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Telefónica SA (represented by: J. Ruiz Calzado and J. Domínguez Pérez, abogados, and M. Núñez Müller, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: P. Němečková and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 March 2012 in Case T-228/10 Telefónica v Commission by which the General Court dismissed as inadmissible an action for annulment of Article 1(1) of Commission Decision 2011/5/EC of 28 October 2009 on the tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions C 45/07 (ex NN 51/07, ex CP 9/07) implemented by Spain (OJ 2011 L 7, p. 48).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Telefónica SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 227, 28.7.2012.


title: Case C-516/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Austria) lodged on 3 October 2016 — Erzeugerorganisation Tiefkühlgemüse e. Gen. v Agrarmarkt Austria

text:
               12.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Austria) lodged on 3 October 2016 — Erzeugerorganisation Tiefkühlgemüse e. Gen. v Agrarmarkt Austria
   (Case C-516/16)
   (2016/C 462/13)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Erzeugerorganisation Tiefkühlgemüse e. Gen.

      Respondent: Agrarmarkt Austria

      Questions referred

               I.1.

               Do Articles 65, 66 and 69 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 (1) of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules of Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector and (since 23 June 2011) Articles 64, 65 and 68 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 (2) of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors require that the decision approving the operational programme and the amounts of funds, or any amendment of that decision, and the decision on the ‘approved amount of aid’ be adopted not merely as notifications but formally as (at least provisionally) binding decisions that can be challenged by the applicant at the outset, that is to say irrespective of any challenge to the final decision (pursuant to Article 70 of Regulation 1580/2007 or Article 69 of Regulation No 543/2011) on the application for (closing) payment of the aid?

               I.2.

               Are the provisions cited in Question I.1 to be interpreted as meaning that, at the time when such decisions are adopted, the value of the marketed production must also be fixed with binding effect (in the normative part of the decision)?

               I.3.

               Is EU law, in particular Articles 69 and 70 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors, to be interpreted as meaning that a court required to rule on an appeal brought against a decision by which an administrative authority, in connection with a particular annual segment of the operational programme, gave a final adjudication on an application for the payment of financial assistance under Article 103 g(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation), in the version of Council Regulation (EC) No 361/2008 of 14 April 2008 amending Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (‘Single CMO Regulation’), is prevented from examining the question of the legality of the value-of-the-marketed-production calculation used as the basis for the ceiling on aid by a pre-existing final decision approving the operational programme and the amounts of funds and by the decision on the ‘approved amount of aid’?

               I.4.

               If Question I.1., I.2. or I.3. is answered in the negative, is Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation), in particular Parts IX (‘Fruit and vegetables’, specifically in relation to ‘CN code ex 07 09 … Other vegetables, fresh or chilled …’) and X (‘Processed fruit and vegetable products’, in relation to ‘CN code ex 07 10 Vegetables … frozen’) of Annex I thereto, to be interpreted as meaning that vegetable products that emerge from the sum of the processes that follow the harvest, namely cleaning, slicing, blanching and freezing, are to be classified not as products within the meaning of Part IX of Annex I but as products within the meaning of Part X of Annex I?

               I.5.

               If Question I.4. is answered in the affirmative, is the concept of the ‘value of the marketed production’ used in Article 103d(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation), in the version of Council Regulation (EC) No 361/2008 of 14 April 2008 amending Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (‘Single CMO Regulation’), to be interpreted as meaning that that value is to be calculated in such a way as to take into account only the value of the production, minus the value corresponding to the processing stage, by deducting the value of the process whereby the harvested, cleaned, sliced and blanched vegetables are transformed into quick-frozen vegetables?

               I.6.

               Is Article 51(7) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors to be interpreted as meaning that a producer organisation that has submitted an operational programme for the years 2010 to 2014 which, although approved before 20 January 2010, was later (on 13 December 2013) the subject of an amended approval inasmuch as the method of calculating the value of the marketed production for that programme was changed, can still rely, for the purposes of the detailed rules governing the calculation of the value of the marketed production, on the ‘legislation applicable in 2008’ even after that amendment to the operational programme (that is to say in connection with the aid to be paid in 2014)?

               I.7.

               If Questions I.5. and I.6. are answered in the affirmative, are Article 52(6)(a) and Article 21(1)(i) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules of Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector invalid in so far as, pursuant to those provisions, the stages in the processing of harvested vegetables whereby those vegetables are transformed into ‘another product listed in Annex I to the EC Treaty’ are included in the calculation of the value of the marketed production?

               I.8.

               If Question I.6. is answered in the negative (and irrespective of the answers given to the other questions), is Article 50(3)(d) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors invalid?

               II.1.

               Is Article 103c of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation), in the version of Council Regulation (EC) No 361/2008 of 14 April 2008 amending Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (‘Single CMO Regulation’) to be interpreted as meaning that an ‘operational programme in the fruit and vegetables sector’ allows only for the promotion of the production of products capable of being classified as products within the meaning of Part IX of Annex I, but not also the promotion of investments in the processing of such products?

               II.2.

               If Question II.1. is answered in the negative, under what conditions and to what extent does Article 103c of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation), in the version of Council Regulation (EC) No 361/2008 of 14 April 2008 amending Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (‘Single CMO Regulation’), allow investments in processing to be promoted in this way?

               II.3.

               Is Article 60(7) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors invalid?

               III.1.

               Is point 23 of Annex IX to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors to be interpreted as meaning that the only reason for the exclusion of that promotion is the fact that it takes place on external premises?

               III.2.

               If Question III.1. is answered in the affirmative, is point 23 of Annex IX to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors invalid?

               III.3.

               If Question III.1. is answered in the affirmative and Question III.2. in the negative, is the rule laid down in point 23 of Annex IX to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 a clear and unambiguous provision to the extent that the legitimate expectations of an economic operator who [engages in] the promotion of activities which, although performed on external premises, nonetheless form part of his business are not protected, despite the fact that that promotion was the subject of an assurance or approval given by the domestic authorities in full knowledge of the facts?

               IV.

               Does the fact that the Court of Justice does not limit in a manner beneficial to the person concerned the effects of a judgment (within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 264 TFEU) which, by virtue of a new interpretation of EU law or a declaration as to the invalidity of an act of EU law previously regarded as valid, is detrimental in law to that person, have the effect of preventing that person from relying on the principle of legal certainty in a particular case before a national court, where it is established that he is acting in good faith?

      (1)  OJ 2007 L 350, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2011 L 157, p. 1.


title: Joined Cases C-401/15 to C-403/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative — Luxembourg) — Noémie Depesme (C-401/15), Saïd Kerrou (C-401/15), Adrien Kauffmann (C-402/15), Maxime Lefort (C-403/15) v Ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of movement of persons — Worker’s rights — Equal treatment — Social advantages — Financial aid for the pursuit of higher education studies — Requirement of a parent-child relationship — Concept of ‘child’ — Child of a spouse or registered partner — Contribution towards the maintenance of that child)

text:
               13.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/6

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative — Luxembourg) — Noémie Depesme (C-401/15), Saïd Kerrou (C-401/15), Adrien Kauffmann (C-402/15), Maxime Lefort (C-403/15) v Ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche
   (Joined Cases C-401/15 to C-403/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement of persons - Worker’s rights - Equal treatment - Social advantages - Financial aid for the pursuit of higher education studies - Requirement of a parent-child relationship - Concept of ‘child’ - Child of a spouse or registered partner - Contribution towards the maintenance of that child))
   (2017/C 046/07)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour administrative

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Noémie Depesme (C-401/15), Saïd Kerrou (C-401/15), Adrien Kauffmann (C-402/15), Maxime Lefort (C-403/15)

      Defendant: Ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 45 TFEU and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union must be interpreted as meaning that a child of a frontier worker, who is able to benefit indirectly from the social advantages referred to in the latter provision, such as study finance granted by a Member State to the children of workers pursuing or who have pursued an activity in that Member State, means not only a child who has a child-parent relationship with that worker, but also a child of the spouse or registered partner of that worker, where that worker supports that child. The latter requirement is the result of a factual situation, which it is for the national authorities and, if appropriate, the national courts, to assess, and it is not necessary for them to determine the reasons for that contribution or make a precise estimation of its amount.

      (1)  OJ C 302, 14.9.2015, p. 27.


title: Case C-250/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Mokestinių ginčų komisija prie Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybės — Lithuania) — Lietuvos geležinkeliai AB v Vilniaus teritorinė muitinė, Muitinės departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos (Relief from customs duties and VAT exemptions on imports of goods — Fuel contained in the standard tanks of land motor vehicles — Notion of ‘motorised road vehicle’ — Locomotives — Road transport and transport by rail — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of neutrality)

text:
               29.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 295/12

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Mokestinių ginčų komisija prie Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybės — Lithuania) — Lietuvos geležinkeliai AB v Vilniaus teritorinė muitinė, Muitinės departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos
   (Case C-250/11) (1)

   (Relief from customs duties and VAT exemptions on imports of goods - Fuel contained in the standard tanks of land motor vehicles - Notion of ‘motorised road vehicle’ - Locomotives - Road transport and transport by rail - Principle of equal treatment - Principle of neutrality)
   2012/C 295/20
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Referring court

   Mokestinių ginčų komisija prie Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybės

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Lietuvos geležinkeliai AB

      Defendants: Vilniaus teritorinė muitinė, Muitinės departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Mokestinių ginčų komisija prie Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybės — Interpretation of Article 112 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 of 28 March 1983 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty (OJ 1983 L 105, p. 1) and of Article 107(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009 of 16 November 2009 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty (OJ 2009 L 324, p. 23) — Interpretation of Article 82(1) of Council Directive 83/181/EEC of 28 March 1983 determining the scope of Article 14(1)(d) of Directive 77/388/EEC as regards exemption from value added tax on the final importation of certain goods (OJ 1983 L 105, p. 38) and Article 84(1)(a) of Council Directive 2009/132/EC of 19 October 2009 determining the scope of Article 143(b) and (c) of Directive 2006/112/EC as regards exemption from value added tax on the final importation of certain goods (OJ 2009 L 292, p. 5) — Import, free of customs duty and exempt from VAT, of fuel contained in the standard tanks of land motor vehicles — Company which had diesel put into the standard fuel tanks of its locomotives in a non-member State — Concept of land motor vehicles

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 112(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 of 28 March 1983 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1315/88 of 3 May 1988, Article 107(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009 of 16 November 2009 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty, Article 82(1)(a) of Council Directive 83/181/EEC of 28 March 1983 determining the scope of Article 14(1)(d) of Directive 77/388/EEC as regards exemption from value added tax on the final importation of certain goods, as amended by Council Directive 88/331/EEC of 13 June 1988 and Article 84(1)(a) of Council Directive 2009/132/EC of 19 October 2009 determining the scope of Article 143(b) and (c) of Directive 2006/112/EC as regards exemption from value added tax on the final importation of certain goods must be interpreted as meaning that they do not apply to locomotives.

      (1)  OJ C 226, 30.7.2011.


title: Action brought on 10 April 1995 by Hans-Günter vom Endt against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-100/95)

text:
24 . 6 . 95          LEN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 159/27
( d ) The rejection of the price undertaking proposed by the         Jean-Pierre Aubineau, residing in Brussels (Belgium ),
       applicant is based on invalid grounds .                       represented by Georges Vandersanden, of the Brussels Bar,
                                                                     with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
C ) OJ No L 15, 21 . 1 . 1995 , p . 11 .                             Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 1 Rue Glesener.
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                     — annul the decision of J. P. Contzen, contained in his note
                                                                           of 27 February 1995 , compulsorily transferring the
Action brought on 10 April 1995 by Hans-Günter vom Endt                    applicant to the post of Adviser to the Head of the ISEI
against the Council of the European Union and the                          ( Institute for Systems Engineering and Informatics ),
         Commission of the European Communities                           Ispra ,
                        ( Case T-100/95 )
                                                                     — award the applicant one ecu by way of token
                          ( 95/C 159/55 )
                                                                          compensation for the non-material damage suffered by
                                                                           him,
                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                     — reimburse to the applicant the whole of such personal
An action against the Council of the European Union and                   expenses as he may incur in moving to Ispra and
the Commission of the European Communities was brought                    installing himself there,
before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 10 April 1995 by Hans-Günter vom Endt,                — order the Commission to pay all of the costs .
Wuppertal ( Federal Republic of Germany ), represented by
Bernd Meisterernst, Mechtild Düsing, Dietrich Manstetten,
Frank Schulze and Winfried Haneklaus , Rechtsanwälte,                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Munster, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Dupong & Associés, 14a Rue des Bains .                   The applicant contests the decision of the appointing
                                                                     authority of the Joint Rersearch Centre (JRC ) compulsorily
The applicant claims that the Court should :                         transferring him to Ispra as Adviser to the Head of the
                                                                     Institute for Systems Engineering and Informations (ISEI)
                                                                     with effect from 1 April 1995 , which was subsequently
1 , order the defendants jointly to pay to the applicant             deferred to 1 May 1995 .
      SLOM I compensation for the period from 20 May 1 984
      to 29 March 1989 in the amount of DM 100 965,13
      together with interest thereon at 8 % from 19 May 1992         The applicant was engaged by the JRC as a member of the
      and jointly to pay the costs of the proceedings ;              temporary staff pursuant to a contract of three years'
                                                                     duration, which was subsequently changed to a contract for
2 , join the present action to that already pending in Case          an indefinite period from 1 March 1993 .
      T-77/93 Hülseberg and Others v. Council and
      Commission and also stay the proceedings .                     The applicant disputes the legality of the contested decision
                                                                     on the grounds that it contravenes :
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                     ( a ) the contract of employment concluded between the
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in                  Commission and the applicant, as amended by the
Case T-20/94 .                                                               transaction referred to above, in that it fixes Brussels as
                                                                             the place of employment;
                                                                     ( b ) Article 7 of the Staff Regulations, according to which
                                                                             the appointing authority may compulsorily transfer an
                                                                             official or a member of the temporary staff solely in the
                                                                             interest of the service;
Action brought on 11 April 1995 by Jean-Pierre Aubineau
   against the Commission of the European Communities                (c ) the principle of the protection of legitimate
                        ( Case T-102/95 )                                    expectations , in that the defendant failed to comply
                          ( 95/C 159/56 )                                    with the provisions of the settlement terminating the
                                                                             proceedings in Case T-91 /91 ; and
                 (Language of the case: French)                      (d ) the principle of good management and sound
                                                                             administration .
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 11 April 1995 by


title: Case C-421/09: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien — Austria) — Humanplasma GmbH v Republik Österreich (Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — National rules prohibiting the importation of blood products provided from donations which were not entirely unpaid)

text:
               19.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/13

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien — Austria) — Humanplasma GmbH v Republik Österreich
   (Case C-421/09) (1)

   (Articles 28 EC and 30 EC - National rules prohibiting the importation of blood products provided from donations which were not entirely unpaid)
   2011/C 55/22
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Humanplasma GmbH

      Defendant: Republik Österreich

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien — Interpretation of Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — Compatibility with those provisions of national legislation prohibiting the importation of human blood where payment was made for the blood donation

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 28 EC, read in conjunction with Article 30 EC, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides that the importation of blood or blood components from another Member State is permitted only on the condition, which is also applicable to national products, that the donations of blood on which those products are based were made not only without any payment being made to the donors but also without any reimbursement of the costs incurred by them in connection with those donations.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.


title: Case C-216/13 P: Appeal brought on 23 April 2013 by Acron OAO against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 7 February 2013 in Case T-118/10: Acron OAO v Council of the European Union

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/24

         Appeal brought on 23 April 2013 by Acron OAO against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 7 February 2013 in Case T-118/10: Acron OAO v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-216/13 P)
   2013/C 171/47
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Acron OAO (represented by: B. Evtimov, E. Borovikov, avocats, D. O'Keeffe, Solicitor)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, Fertilizers Europe

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2013 in Case T-118/10 Acron OAO v Council of the European Union;

               —

               Give a final judgment on the merits of the dispute, and annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1251/2009 of 18 December 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 1911/2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of solutions of urea and ammonium nitrate originating, inter alia, in Russia (1), insofar as it affects the Appellant;

               —

               Order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court of Justice as well as the costs of the proceedings before the General Court, including the costs of the Appellant at both instances;

               —

               Order the intervener Fertilizers Europe to bear its own costs in the proceedings before the General Court, as well as its own costs in the event of its possible intervention in the proceedings before the Court of Justice, and to bear all the costs of the Appellant incurred in connection with its intervention(s).

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Appellant submits that the General Court:

               —

               Misinterpreted the first sentence of Article 2(5) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation, first subparagraph, and thereby the corresponding provision of Article 2.2.1.1, first subparagraph of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 in Annex 1A to the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (‘ADA’);

               —

               Upheld an erroneous legal interpretation and upheld a breach of Article 2(3) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation and thereby of the corresponding provision of Article 2.2 ADA;

               —

               Failed to make a correct legal assessment of the relationship between Article 2(5), second sentence, on the one hand, and Article 2(7)(b) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation, on the other hand, and as a result upheld an erroneous legal interpretation of Recitals 3 and 4 of the preamble to Regulation (EC) 1972/2002 (2) and therefore of the second sentence of Article 2(5), first subparagraph, and did not ensure the consistency of the latter interpretation/provision with the ADA;

               —

               Upheld a breach of Article 2(6)(c) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation and a manifest error of assessment.

      (1)  OJ L 338, p. 5

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1972/2002 of 5 November 2002 amending Regulation (EC) No 384/96 on the protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union OJ L 305, p. 1