title: Case C-252/99 P: Appeal brought on 5 July 1999 by Wacker-Chemie GmbH and Hoechst AG against the judgment delivered on 20 April 1999 by the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-305/94, T-306/94, T-307/94, T-313/94, T-314/94, T-315/94, T-316/94, T-318/94, T-325/94, T-328/94, T-329/94 and T-335/94 between Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij NV, Elf Atochem SA, BASF AG, Shell International Chemical Company Ltd, DSM NV and DSM Kunststoffen BV, Wacker-Chemie GmbH, Hoechst AG, Société Artésienne de Vinyle, Montedison SpA, Imperial Chemical Industries plc, Hüls AG and Enichem SpA, and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 352/16               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    4.12.1999
— in the alternative, set aside the judgment of the Court of             6. Misinterpretation and misapplication of Community law,
    First Instance in so far as it is contested by the applicant,            and insufficient consideration of the evidence concerning
    and cancer or reduce accordingly the fine imposed on                     the relationship between the fine imposed on Enichem and
    Enichem by the decision;                                                 its market share.
— order the Commission to pay the costs of the present                   7. Misinterpretation and misapplication of Community law
    proceedings and of the proceedings at first instance.                    in relation to the principle of proportionality between
                                                                             infringement and fine.
Pleas in law and main arguments
A. Procedural grounds
                                                                         Appeal brought on 5 July 1999 by Wacker-Chemie GmbH
1. Misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 44(1)(c) of           and Hoechst AG against the judgment delivered on 20
    the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance and            April 1999 by the Third Chamber, Extended Composition,
    Community case-law in relation to admissibility.                     of the Court of First Instance of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties in Joined Cases T-305/94, T-306/94, T-307/94,
                                                                         T-313/94, T-314/94, T-315/94, T-316/94, T-318/94,
2. Misinterpretation and misapplication of Community law                 T-325/94, T-328/94, T-329/94 and T-335/94 between Lim-
    in relation to the force of res judicata.                            burgse Vinyl Maatschappij NV, Elf Atochem SA, BASF
                                                                         AG, Shell International Chemical Company Ltd, DSM
3. Misinterpretation and misapplication of Community law                 NV and DSM Kunststoffen BV, Wacker-Chemie GmbH,
    in relation to the invalidity of the procedural steps leading        Hoechst AG, Société Artésienne de Vinyle, Montedison
    to the adoption of the decision.                                     SpA, Imperial Chemical Industries plc, Hüls AG and
                                                                         Enichem SpA, and the Commission of the European
4. Misinterpretation and misapplication of Community law                                         Communities
    in relation to the rights of defence in the event of the
    re-adoption of a annulled infringement decision.                                           (Case C-252/99 P)
5. Infringement of Article 190 of the EC Treaty: deficient                                      (1999/C 352/25)
    statement of reasons as regards the sufficiency of the
    reasons relied upon by the Commission in support of its
    re-adoption of the PVC decision.                                     An appeal against the judgment delivered on 20 April 1999
                                                                         by the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of
                                                                         First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases
                                                                         T-305/94, T-306/94, T-307/94, T-313/94, T-314/94,
                                                                         T-315/94, T-316/94, T-318/94, T-325/94, T-328/94,
B. Substantive grounds                                                   T-329/94 and T-335/94 between Limburgse Vinyl Maatschap-
                                                                         pij NV, Elf Atochem SA, BASF AG, Shell International
1. Misinterpretation and misapplication of Community law                 Chemical Company Ltd, DSM NV and DSM Kunststoffen BV,
    in relation to the consequences flowing from the Court of            Wacker-Chemie GmbH, Hoechst AG, Société Artésienne de
    First Instance’s finding of inconsistency between the two            Vinyle, Montedison SpA, Imperial Chemical Industries plc,
    documents setting out the complaint against the Com-                 Hüls AG and Enichem SpA, and the Commission of the
    mission (‘planning documents’’).                                     European Communities was brought before the Court of
                                                                         Justice of the European Communities on 5 July 1999 by
2. Misapplication of Community law, including recent case-               Wacker-Chernie GmbH and Hoechst AG, represented by Hans
    law, in relation to individual liability for a collective            Hellmann, Rechtsanwalt, Amn Morsdorfer Hof 16, D-50933
    infringement.                                                        Cologne.
3. Infringement of Community law in relation to the parties’             The appellants claim that the Court should:
    rights of defence, in particular as regards access to the case
    file.                                                                1. set aside paragraphs 4 and 5 of the operative part of the
                                                                             judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance on
                                                                             20 April 1999 in Case T-315/94 Wacker-Chemie GmbH
4. Misinterpretation and misapplication to the present case                  v Commission and Case T-316/94 Hoechst AG v Com-
    of the principles relating to the fixing of the fines / Incor-           mission, and
    rect assessment of the relationship between turnover and
    the amount of the fine.                                                  (a) annul, in so far as it is addressed to the appellants,
                                                                                Commission Decision 94/599/EC of 27 July 1994 (1)
5. Misinterpretation and misapplication of Community law,                        in cartel proceeding IV/31.865 — PVC, constituting
    including recent case-law, in relation to the obligations of                 the subject-matter of the action, in accordance with
    the Commission concerning the statement of the criteria                      the application made therein, alternatively, reduce the
    for calculating the fines.                                                   fine imposed on them; or
 ---pagebreak--- 4.12.1999               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 352/17
    (b) in the further alternative, in the event that the dispute is               also in relation to its adoption, since the purpose of such
         not yet capable of being determined, refer the case                       consultation is to enable discussion of the proposed
         back to the Court of First Instance in order for the                      decision — which the Commission must annex to the
         proceedings to be resumed and decided by that Court;                      notice convening the joint meeting — to take place.
2.  order   the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings,                    The contested judgment overlooks the fact that the
    alternatively, in the event that the case is referred back,                    obligation to put an end to a contravention, or
    reserve the decision on costs to the Court of First Instance.                  alternatively to refrain from taking action, can be
                                                                                justified only on the basis of a close temporal proximity
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                    to the oral hearing, and that it is essential, for that
— Procedural errors:                                                               reason, that a decision in the matter be adopted within
    — Defective composition of the Chamber according to law:                       a short period of time.
         although the Third Chamber, Extended Composition,                         It is correspondingly erroneous, as a matter of law, to
         was properly constituted for the purposes of the oral                     suppose that the determination of the fine remains
         procedure, it was not properly constituted for the pur-                   unaffected by the passage of time. The Commission is
         poses of delivery of the judgment. Where a Judge who is                   required to decide the matter in the proper exercise of
         called upon to take part in the judgment of a case retires                its discretion, but in doing so it must have regard to
         on account of the expiry of his term of office, this does                 the factual situation prevailing at the time when the
         not give rise to an even number of Judges ‘by reason of a                 second decision is adopted. Moreover, it is also obliged
         Judge being absent or prevented from attending’, and,
                                                                                to have regard, when calculating the fine, to the
         by virtue of its very wording, Article 32(1) of the Rules
         of Procedure is not applicable. In the present case, the                  financial situation and, in particular, to take into
         Judge in question had already retired seven months                        account, in accordance with Article 15(2) of Regulation
         before the judgment was delivered; it is clear that his                   No 17/62, the ‘turnover in the preceding business
         retirement definitively occurred even before the oral                     year’.
         procedure took place, and the Court of First Instance            — Infringement of Article 81(1) EC and of Article 15(2) of
         consequently had a sufficient opportunity to take steps              Regulation No 17/62.
         to ensure in good time that it was composed of five
         Judges, in accordance with the law.
                                                                          (1) OJ L 239 of 14.9.1994, p. 14.
         The delivery of the contested judgment by a Chamber              (2) OJ, English Special Edition 1959-1962, p. 87.
         which was not properly composed also constitutes an              (3) OJ, English Special Edition 1963-1964, p. 47.
         infringement of the basic right to trial by a forum
         constituted in accordance with the law.
    — Failure to examine disputed facts: if the Court of First
         Instance considered that the turnover figures pleaded by
         the applicant Hoechst, and confirmed by a reputable
         firm of auditors, were incorrect or doubtful, it should          Appeal brought on 8 July 1999 by Imperial Chemical
         have heard evidence in that regard, since it is not in any       Industries plc against the judgment delivered on 20 April
         way sufficient, for the purposes of finding that there has       1999 by the Court of First Instance of the European
         been an anti-trust violation, to call in question infor-         Communities (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) in
         mation provided by individual parties to the proceed-            joined cases T-305/94 (1), T-306/94 (2), T-307/94 (3),
         ings or to characterise that information as unbelievable.        T-313/94 (4), T-314/94 (5), T-315/94 (6), T-316/94 (7),
         On the contrary, the parties concerned must be given             T-318/94 (8), T-325/94 (9), T-328/94 (10), T-329/94 (11) and
         concrete proof of the facts on which there is presumed           T-335/94 (12) between, respectively, Limburgse Vinyl
         to have been a violation of cartel law. If, following            Maatschappij NV, Elf Atochem SA, BASF AC, Shell Inter-
         exhaustion of the possibilities available for investigating      national Chemical Co. Ltd, DSM NV and DSM Kunststof-
         the matter, doubts continue to exist, the case should be         fen BV, Wacker-Chemie GmbH, Hoechst AC, Société
         decided in favour of the party alleged to be at fault.           Artésienne de Vinyle, Montedison SpA, Imperial Chemi-
— Infringement of Community law;                                          cal Industries plc, Hüls AC and Enichem SpA and the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
    — Infringement of Article 231(1) in conjunction with
         Article 230(4) EC, Articles 10(3) and 19(1) of regulation                                 (Case C-254/99 P)
         No 17/62 (2) and Articles 1, 2, 4 and 7 of Regulation
         No 99/63 (3): contrary to the view taken by the Court of                                    (1999/C 352/26)
         First Instance, the adoption of the contested Com-
         mission decision was not preceded either by a hearing            An appeal against the judgment delivered on 20 April 1999
         of the parties to the proceeding or by any consultation          by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
         of the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and           (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) in joined cases
         Dominant Positions. Instead, the Court of First Instance         T-305/94 etc. between Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij NV and
         treated as sufficient hearings which had taken place             others and the Commission of the European Communities,
         approximately six years prior to the adoption of the             was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
         contested decision imposing the fine and which related           Communities on 8 July 1999 by Imperial Chemical Industries
         to a decision different from the contested decision.             plc (‘ICI’), of Imperial Chemical House, 9 Millbank, London
         The Court of First Instance has disregarded the require-         SW1, represented by David Vaughan QC, David Anderson QC
         ment that the Advisory Committee on Restrictive                  and Kelyn Bacon, Barrister, instructed by Richard Coles and
         Practices and Dominant Positions must be consulted,              Shirley Turner, Solicitors, with an address for service in
         in accordance with Article 10 of Regulation No 17/62,            Luxembourg at the Chambers of Lambert Dupong, 4-6 Rue de
         not only before the proposed decision is adopted but             la Boucherie.


title: Case C-505/07: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 1 October 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain)) — Proceedings brought by Compañía Española de Comercialización de Aceite SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common organisation of the market in oils and fats — Regulation No 136/66/EEC — Article 12a — Storage of olive oil without Community financing — Powers of national competition authorities)

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/5

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 1 October 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain)) — Proceedings brought by Compañía Española de Comercialización de Aceite SA
   (Case C-505/07) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common organisation of the market in oils and fats - Regulation No 136/66/EEC - Article 12a - Storage of olive oil without Community financing - Powers of national competition authorities)
   2009/C 282/07
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Compañía Española de Comercialización de Aceite SA

      Intervening parties: Associación Española de la Industria y Comercio Exportador de Aceite de Oliva (Asoliva), Asociación Nacional de Industriales Envasadores y Refinadores de Aceites Comestibles (Anierac), Administración del Estado

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Supremo — Interpretation of Article 12a of Council Regulation No 136/66/EEC of 22 September 1966 on the establishment of a common organisation of the market in oils and fats (OJ, English Special Edition 1965-1966, p. 221) as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1638/98 (OJ 1998 L 210, p 32), of Council Regulation (EC) No 952/97 of 20 May 1997 on producer groups and associations thereof (OJ 1997 L 142, p. 30) and of Regulation No 26 applying certain rules of competition to production of and trade in agricultural products (OJ, English Special Edition 1959-1962, p. 129) — Meaning of ‘authorised body’ — Meaning of producer groups and associations thereof — Storage

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               A public limited company, the capital of which is held predominantly by olive oil producers, oil pressers and olive growers’ cooperatives, and the remainder of the capital of which is held by financial entities, is capable of coming within the concept of a body, within the meaning of Article 12a of Council Regulation No 136/66/EEC of 22 September 1966 on the establishment of a common organisation of the market in oils and fats, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1638/98 of 20 July 1998, which may be authorised to conclude a contract for the private storage of olive oil under that provision, subject to it meeting the conditions laid down therein.

               2.

               The ‘approval by the Member State’, which bodies within the meaning of Article 12a of Regulation No 136/66 — as amended by Regulation No 1638/98 — must have, can be obtained in the context of application for an individual exemption (‘authorisation’) submitted to the national competition authorities, provided that those authorities have the means necessary to verify the suitability of the body which has submitted the application to carry out the private storage of olive oil in compliance with the legal requirements.

               3.

               Article 12a of Regulation No 136/66, as amended by Regulation No 1638/98, does not preclude a mechanism for the purchase and storage of olive oil which is agreed and financed privately, and which has not undergone the authorisation procedure to which that provision refers.

               4.

               To the extent that the national competition authorities refrain from taking any measure which might undermine or create exceptions to the common organisation of the market in olive oil and from taking decisions which conflict with those of the Commission of the European Communities or create the risk of such conflict, they can apply national competition law to an agreement which is likely to affect the market in olive oil at Community level.

      (1)  OJ C 37, 09.02.2008.


title: Case C-576/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 November 2013 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 91/271/EEC — Treatment of urban waste water — Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations — Non-implementation — Article 260 TFEU — Pecuniary penalties — Imposition of a penalty payment and a lump sum payment)

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/6

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 November 2013 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-576/11) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 91/271/EEC - Treatment of urban waste water - Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations - Non-implementation - Article 260 TFEU - Pecuniary penalties - Imposition of a penalty payment and a lump sum payment)
   2014/C 45/11
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet, B. Simon and E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: P. Frantzen and C. Schiltz, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by S. Behzadi-Spencer, C. Murrell and S. Ford, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Incomplete compliance with a judgment of the Court of 23 November 2006 in Case C-452/05 Commission v Luxembourg on the failure to transpose the provisions of Council Directive 91/271/EEC concerning urban waste-water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40) — Incorrect application of Article 5(4) of that directive.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to take all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 23 November 2006 in Case C-452/05 Commission v Luxembourg, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU.

               2.

               Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay to the European Commission, into the ‘European Union own resources’ account, a lump sum of EUR 2 000 000.

               3.

               Declares that, if the failure to fulfil obligations found in point 1 has continued until the date of delivery of this judgment, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg shall be ordered to pay to the European Commission, into the ‘European Union own resources’ account, a penalty payment of EUR 2 800 for each day of delay in taking the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 23 November 2006 in Case C-452/05 Commission v Luxembourg, from the date of delivery of this judgment until the date on which the judgment in Case C-452/05 Commission v Luxembourg has been complied with in full.

               4.

               Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

               5.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 39, 11.02.2012


title: Case T-610/15: Action brought on 26 October 2015 — British Aggregates v Commission

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/64

         Action brought on 26 October 2015 — British Aggregates v Commission
   (Case T-610/15)
   (2016/C 027/82)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: British Aggregates Association (Lanark, United Kingdom) (represented by: L. Van den Hende, lawyer, and A. White, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               order the annulment pursuant to Article 263 TFEU of the Commission’s decision of 27 March 2015 C(2015) 2141 final in Case SA.34775 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) — Aggregates Levy; and

               —

               order that the Commission pay the applicant's costs in these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission has made errors of assessment in deciding that eight exemptions from the aggregates levy (‘AGL’) under the Finance Act 2001 do not result in selectivity and thereby do not constitute State aid under Article 107(1) TFEU and in determining the normal taxation principle and objective of the AGL for the purposes of applying the selectivity criterion.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission has failed to make a genuinely diligent and impartial examination as to whether the eight exemptions in question result in selectivity and thereby constitute State aid under Article 107(1) TFEU.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission has failed to state reasons for the contested decision as required by Article 296 TFEU because the application made by the Commission of the normal taxation principle and objective of the AGL in explaining why the eight exemptions in question do not result in selectivity is contradictory on the face of the contested decision.


title: Case C-386/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 20 July 2011 — Piepenbrock Dienstleistungen GmbH & Co. KG v Kreis Düren

text:
               22.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/17

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 20 July 2011 — Piepenbrock Dienstleistungen GmbH & Co. KG v Kreis Düren
   (Case C-386/11)
   2011/C 311/27
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Piepenbrock Dienstleistungen GmbH & Co. KG

      Defendant: Kreis Düren

      Other party to the proceedings: Stadt Düren

      Question referred

   Is a ‘public contract’ within the meaning of Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (1) to be understood as also meaning a contract between two local authorities whereby one of them assigns strictly limited competence to the other in return for the reimbursement of costs, in particular where the task assigned concerns only ancillary business, not official activities as such?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114.


title: Case C-101/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 28 February 2013 — U v Stadt Karlsruhe

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/19

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 28 February 2013 — U v Stadt Karlsruhe
   (Case C-101/13)
   2013/C 156/30
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: U

      Defendant: Stadt Karlsruhe

      Questions referred

               1.

               In accordance with the annex to Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004, (1) must the personal data page of machine readable passports issued by the Member States satisfy all the compulsory specifications of Part 1 (Machine Readable Passports) of Document No 9303 of the ICAO? (2)

               2.

               If, in accordance with the Law on names of a Member State, a person’s name comprises his first name and surname, are the Member States also entitled, in accordance with the annex to Regulation (EC) No 2252/200, in conjunction with Point 8.6 of Section IV of Part 1 (Machine Readable Passports) of Document No 9303 of the ICAO, to enter the name at birth as a primary identifier in Field 6 of the machine readable personal data page of the passport?

               3.

               If, in accordance with the Law on names of a Member State, a person’s name comprises his first name and surname, are the Member States also entitled, in accordance with the annex to Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004, in conjunction with Point 8.6 of Section IV of Part 1 (Machine Readable Passports) of Document No 9303 of the ICAO, to enter the name at birth as a secondary identifier in Field 7 of the machine readable personal data page of the passport?

               4.

               If either the second or third question is answered in the affirmative: is a Member State, in accordance with whose Law on names a person’s name comprises his first name and surname, required, on the basis of the protection afforded to a person’s name under Article 7 of the CFREU (3) and Article 8 ECHR, (4) to state, in the relevant caption of the machine readable personal data page of a passport, that the name at birth is also entered in that field?

               5.

               If the fourth question is answered in the negative: by reason of the protection afforded to a person’s name under Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 8 ECHR, is a Member State, in accordance with whose Law on names a person’s name comprises his first name and surname and under whose Law on passports the fields on the machine readable personal data page of a passport are also to be given in English and French and in Field 6 of that page the name at birth is also to be provided on a single line, preceded by the abbreviation ‘geb.’ of the word ‘geboren’ (born), also required to provide a translation in English and French of the abbreviation ‘geb.’?

               6.

               If, in accordance with the Law on names of a Member State, a person’s name comprises his first name and surname, are the Member States entitled, in accordance with the annex to Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004, in conjunction with Part 8.6 of Section IV of Part 1 (Machine Readable Passports) of Document No 9303 of the ICAO, to enter the name at birth as an optional item of personal data in Field 13 of the machine readable personal data page of the passport?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 of 13 December 2004 on standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States (OJ 2004 L 385, p. 1).

      (2)  International Civil Aviation Organisation.

      (3)  Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

      (4)  The European Convention on Human Rights.


title: Case C-636/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 1 of Pamplona lodged on 9 December 2016 — Wilber López Pastuzano v Delegación del Gobierno de Navarra

text:
               13.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/18

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 1 of Pamplona lodged on 9 December 2016 — Wilber López Pastuzano v Delegación del Gobierno de Navarra
   (Case C-636/16)
   (2017/C 046/20)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo of Pamplona

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Wilber López Pastuzano

      Defendant: Delegación del Gobierno de Navarra

      Question referred

   Must Article 12 of Council Directive 2003/109/EC (1) of 25 November [2003] concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that issue in the main proceedings, and the case-law interpreting it, which does not provide for the application of the requirements of protection against the expulsion of a long-term resident foreign national to all administrative expulsion decisions regardless of the legal nature or type thereof, but instead restricts the application of those requirements to a specific type of expulsion?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 16, p. 44.


title: Case T-660/13: Action brought on 12 December 2013 — Czech Republic v European Commission

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/41

         Action brought on 12 December 2013 — Czech Republic v European Commission
   (Case T-660/13)
   2014/C 45/71
   Language of the case: Czech

      Parties

      Applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil, Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul in its entirety Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 886/2013 of 15 May 2013 supplementing Directive 2010/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to data and procedures for the provision, where possible, of road safety-related minimum universal traffic information free of charge to users (OJ 2013 L 247, p. 6) and

               —

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

         In the alternative, the applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Article 5(1), Article 9 and Article 10(1)(a) of the contested regulation, and

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on 3 pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 7(1) of Directive No 2010/40/EU (1) in conjunction with Article 5(1) and Article 6 thereof
               In this connection, the applicant states that the Commission, by adopting the contested regulation, exceeded the limits of the authority laid down by Article 7(1) of Directive No 2010/40, in conjunction with Article 5(1) and Article 6 thereof.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 209 TFEU
               In this plea, the applicant claims that the Commission, by the adoption of the contested regulation, exceeded its delegated power to adopt non-legislative acts pursuant to Article 290 TFEU.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 13(2) TEU
               In this regard, the applicant submits that the Commission, by the adoption of the contested regulation, exceeded the limits of the powers conferred on it in the Treaties.

      (1)  Directive 2010/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2010 on the framework for the deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems in the field of road transport and for interfaces with other modes of transport (OJ 2010 L 207, p. 1).


title: Case F-116/12: Action brought on 15 October 2012 — ZZ v Frontex

text:
               8.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 379/35

         Action brought on 15 October 2012 — ZZ v Frontex
   (Case F-116/12)
   2012/C 379/60
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the applicant’s staff report and a claim for damages.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the applicant’s staff report for 2010;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the sum of EUR 10 000 in respect of the non-material damage suffered by the applicant;

               —

               order Frontex to pay the costs.


title: Case T-482/12: Action brought on 29 October 2012 — Internationaler Hilfsfonds v European Commission

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/53

         Action brought on 29 October 2012 — Internationaler Hilfsfonds v European Commission
   (Case T-482/12)
   2013/C 26/106
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV (Rosbach, Germany) (represented by: H.-H. Heyland, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the defendant’s implicit decision by which it rejected the applicant’s second application of 4 October 2012;

               —

               In the alternative, annul the defendant’s decision of 28 August 2012 on account of its failure to take into account the requirements arising from the judgment of the General Court of 22 May 2012 in Case T-300/10;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant argues essentially that in its decision the Commission partially failed to take into account the requirements arising from the judgment of the General Court of 22 May 2012 in Case T-300/10 Internationaler Hilfsfonds v Commission, not yet published in the ECR.


title: Case T-228/10: Order of the General Court of 21 March 2012 — Telefónica v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Aid schemes allowing for the tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions — Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market and not ordering the recovery of aid — Act entailing implementing measures — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               5.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 133/25

         Order of the General Court of 21 March 2012 — Telefónica v Commission
   (Case T-228/10) (1)

   (Action for annulment - State aid - Aid schemes allowing for the tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions - Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market and not ordering the recovery of aid - Act entailing implementing measures - Lack of individual concern - Inadmissibility)
   2012/C 133/49
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Telefónica, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Ruiz Calzado, M. Núñez-Müller and J. Domínguez Pérez, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and C. Urraca Caviedes, Agents)

      Re:

   Application 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 order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Telefónica, SA is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 195, 17.7.2010.


title: Case T-399/09: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2013 — HSE v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for calcium carbide and magnesium for the steel and gas industries in the EEA, with the exception of Ireland, Spain, Portugal and the United Kingdom — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Price-fixing and market-sharing — Imputability of the unlawful conduct — Presumption of innocence — Fines — Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — 2006 guidelines on the method of setting fines — Mitigating circumstances — Infringement committed as a result of negligence — Infringement authorised or encouraged by the public authorities)

text:
               8.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2013 — HSE v Commission
   (Case T-399/09) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for calcium carbide and magnesium for the steel and gas industries in the EEA, with the exception of Ireland, Spain, Portugal and the United Kingdom - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price-fixing and market-sharing - Imputability of the unlawful conduct - Presumption of innocence - Fines - Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - 2006 guidelines on the method of setting fines - Mitigating circumstances - Infringement committed as a result of negligence - Infringement authorised or encouraged by the public authorities)
   2014/C 39/25
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Holding Slovenske elektrarne d.o.o. (HSE) (Ljubljana, Slovenia) (represented by: F. Urlesberger, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially J. Bourke and N. von Lingen, and subsequently by N. von Lingen and R. Sauer, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 5791 final of 22 July 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 (EC) and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.396 — Calcium carbide and magnesium based reagents for the steel and gas industries), in so far as it relates to the applicant, and, in the alternative, for the reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant by that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Holding Slovenske elektrarne d.o.o. (HSE) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.


title: Action brought on 9 June 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany (Case C-217/97)

text:
16 . 8 . 97             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 252/ 15
     customs authority in the context of an appeal against              2 . order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
     a decision by which that authority rejected the                           costs .
     application for suspension of operation brought by the
     person concerned .                                                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
3 . In the light of the first sentence of the third paragraph
     of Article 244 of the CCC, must it be considered that              The pleas in law and main arguments are apparent from
     suspension of operation is subject only to the existence           the heads of claim . As regards the complaint made
     or lodging of a security or must the conditions laid               in the third indent in paragraph 1 above, the
     down in the preceding paragraph also be fulfilled ?                Commission maintains that to equate, in conceptual
                                                                        terms, 'preliminary investigation proceedings' with
                                                                        ' administrative proceedings' would be tantamount to
(') Common Customs Code ( OJ No L 302 , 19 . 10 . 1992 , p . 1 ).
                                                                        excluding a wholly material range of environmental
                                                                        information, such as, for example, experts' reports on the
                                                                        state of water or soil or the position adopted by a public
                                                                        authority in the context of proceedings for the grant of
                                                                        planning approval .
Action brought on 9 June 1997 by the Commission of the
European Communities against the Federal Republic of                    ( ] ) OJ No L 158 , 23 . 6 . 1990, p . 56 .
                              Germany
                          ( Case C-217/97 )
                             97/C 252/29
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                   Action brought on 12 June 1997 by the Commission of
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                     the European Communities against the Federal Republic
Communities on 9 June 1997 by the Commission of the                                                     of Germany
European Communities, represented by Gotz zur Hausen,                                               ( Case C-220/97)
Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service
in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,                                               ( 97/C 252/30
of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254 , Kirchberg.
                                                                        An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
The applicant claims that the Court should :                            brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                        Communities on 12 June 1997 by the Commission of the
1 . declare that,
                                                                        European Communities , represented by Gotz zur Hausen,
     — by excluding courts, criminal prosecution                        Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service
          authorities and disciplinary authorities from the             in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
          scope of the German legislation, contrary to                  of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.
          Article 2 ( b ) of Council Directive 90/313/EEC of
          7 June 1990 (') on the freedom of access to                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
          information on the environment, even where they
          are not acting in the context of their judicial               1 . declare that, by failing within the prescribed period to
          activities,                                                          adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative
                                                                               measures necessary in order to comply with Council
     — by failing, contrary to the second subparagraph of                      Directive 92/3/Euratom of 3 February 1992 (') on the
          Article 3 ( 2 ) of the Directive, to provide for
                                                                               supervision and control of shipments of radioactive
          information to be supplied in part where it is                       waste between Member States and into and out of the
          possible to separate out information concerning                      Community, the Federal Republic of Germany has
          the reserved matters listed in Article 3 (2 ),
                                                                               failed to fulfil its obligations under the Euratom
     — by failing, contrary to the third indent of                             Treaty;
          Article 3 ( 2 ), to provide for access to be given,
          during the course of administrative proceedings, to           2 . order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
          information received by the authorities by reason                    costs .
          of those proceedings,
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     — by providing, contrary to Article 5 , for charges to
          be made not merely for the supply of the
          information and by not limiting those charges to a            The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third
          reasonable sum,                                               paragraph of Article 161 and the first paragraph of
                                                                        Article 192 of the Euratom Treaty is such as to oblige
     — the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to                    Member States to whom directives             are addressed to
          fulfil its obligations under the abovementioned               achieve the objectives laid down therein within the time
          directive, in particular Article 2 ( b ), the third           limit prescribed, that is to say, to transpose the provisions
          indent of Article 3 ( 2 ), the second subparagraph of         of the directive in question into national law in such a
          Article 3 (2 ) and Article 5 thereof;                         way as to give full practical effect to its provisions before


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 February 2005 in Case T-256/01 Norman Pyres v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Selection procedure for the recruitment of temporary agents — Non-admission to the tests — Age limit — Principle of non-discrimination)

text:
               16.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/25

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 15 February 2005
   in Case T-256/01 Norman Pyres v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Officials - Selection procedure for the recruitment of temporary agents - Non-admission to the tests - Age limit - Principle of non-discrimination)
   (2005/C 93/49)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-256/01: Norman Pyres, a former temporary agent of the Commission of the European Communities, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers, against the Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — action for annulment of the ‘Research’ Selection Committee's decisions COM/R/A/14/2000 of 1 December 2000, COM/R/A/07/2000 of 4 December 2000, and COM/R/A/10/2000 of 7 December 2000, not to admit the applicant to the selection procedures organised by the ‘Research’ Directorate General on the ground that he did not satisfy the condition relating to the age limit, — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, P. Mengozzi and I. Labucka, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 February 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 17 of 19.1.2002.


title: Removal from the register of T-213/96

text:
14 . 6 . 97             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                             No C 181 /23
          Removal from the register of T- 187/96 (')                           Removal from the register of T-139/95 (')
                          ( 97/C 181 /50 )                                                       ( 97/C 181 /53 )
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
By order of 19 March 1997 the President of the First
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First                  By order of 15 April 1997 the President of the Second
Instance of the European Communities has ordered the                  Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
removal from the register of Case T-l 87/96 : Salini                  Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Costruttori SpA v. Commission of the European                         Case T-139/95 : Georges Cantone v. Commission of the
Communities .                                                         European Communities .
(') OJ No C 27, 25 . 1 . 1997.                                        O OJ No C 229 , 2 . 9 . 1995 .
          Removal from the register of T-l 8 8/96 (')                          Removal from the register of T-2 13/96 ( ! )
                            97/C 181 /51 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 181 /54 )
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
By order of 19 March 1997 the President of the First
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First                  By order of 18 April 1997 the President of the First
Instance of the European Communities has ordered the                  Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
removal from the register of Case T-l 88/96 : Salini                  Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Costruttori SpA v. Commission of the European                         Case T-213/96 : Giorgio Lebedef v. Commission of the
Communities .
                                                                      European Communities .
(>) OJ No C 40, 8 . 2 . 1997 .
                                                                      (') OJ No C 54, 22 . 2 . 1997 .
          Removal from the register of T-196/96 (')
                          ( 97/C 181 /52 )                                     Removal from the register of T-133/96 H
                                                                                ( 97/C 181 /55 )
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
By order of 10 April 1997 the President of the First
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of              By order of 23 April 1997 the President of the First
Case T-196/96 : Giorgio Lebedef v. Commission of the                  Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
European Communities.                                                 Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                      Case T-133/96 : Michael Boessen v. Economic and Social
 1 OJ No C 54 , 22 . 2 . 1997.                                        Committee .
                                                                      (') OJ No C 318 , 26 . 10 . 1996 .


title: Joined Cases C-340/14 and C-341/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — R.L. Trijber, trading as Amstelboats v College van burgemeester en wethouders van Amsterdam (C-340/14), J. Harmsen v Burgemeester van Amsterdam (C-341/14) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2006/123/EC — Services in the internal market — Leisure boating — Window prostitution businesses — Article 2(2)(d) — Scope — Not included — Services in the field of transport — Freedom of establishment — Authorisation scheme — Article 10(2)(c) — Conditions for granting the authorisation — Proportionality — Language requirement — Article 11(1)(b) — Duration of the authorisation — Restriction of the number of authorisations available — Overriding reason relating to the public interest)

text:
               16.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/8

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — R.L. Trijber, trading as Amstelboats v College van burgemeester en wethouders van Amsterdam (C-340/14), J. Harmsen v Burgemeester van Amsterdam (C-341/14)
   (Joined Cases C-340/14 and C-341/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2006/123/EC - Services in the internal market - Leisure boating - Window prostitution businesses - Article 2(2)(d) - Scope - Not included - Services in the field of transport - Freedom of establishment - Authorisation scheme - Article 10(2)(c) - Conditions for granting the authorisation - Proportionality - Language requirement - Article 11(1)(b) - Duration of the authorisation - Restriction of the number of authorisations available - Overriding reason relating to the public interest))
   (2015/C 381/09)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: R.L. Trijber, trading as Amstelboats (C–340/14), J. Harmsen (C–341/14)

      Defendants: College van burgemeester en wethouders van Amsterdam, Burgemeester van Amsterdam

      Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               Article 2(2)(d) of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market, must be interpreted as meaning that, subject to the checks to be carried out by the referring court, an activity, such as that which is the subject of the application for authorisation in the main proceedings, which consists in providing, for payment, a service of carrying passengers on a boat for a waterway tour of a city for event-related purposes, does not constitute a service in the ‘field of transport’ within the meaning of that provision which is excluded from the scope of that directive.

               2)

               Article 11(1)(b) of Directive 2006/123 must be interpreted as precluding the grant by the competent national authorities of authorisations for an unlimited period for the exercise of an activity such as that at issue in the main proceedings, where the number of authorisations granted for that purpose by those authorities is limited for overriding reasons relating to the public interest.

               3)

               Article 10(2)(c) of Directive 2006/123 must be interpreted as not precluding a measure, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which the grant of authorisation for the exercise of an activity, such as that at issue in Case C-341/14, consisting in the operation of window prostitution businesses by renting rooms out in shifts is subject to the condition that the service provider is able to communicate with the recipients of those services, in this case prostitutes, where that condition is such as to ensure that the legitimate objective of general interest pursued — namely the prevention of criminal offences related to prostitution — is secured, and does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve that objective, which is for the referring court to determine.

      (1)  OJ C 339, 29.9.2014.


title: Case C-285/00: Action brought on 20 July 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
9.9.2000                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 259/13
      Directive 93/37/EEC (1), for which the amount exceeds by             Action brought on 20 July 2000 by the Commission of
      a considerable margin the threshold for application of                the European Communities against the French Republic
      the directive, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its
      obligations under Community law;                                                                (Case C-285/00)
2.    Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.                                                   (2000/C 259/22)
                                                                           An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           Court of Justice of the European Communities on 20 July
                                                                           2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
The Commission considers that Sociedad Estatal de Infraestruc-             represented by Bernard Mongin, of its Legal Service, acting as
turas y Equipamientos Penitenciarios, SA (SIEPSA) is a ‘body               Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
governed by public law’ within the meaning of Article 1(b) of              of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner
Directive 93/37/EEC and, consequently, a contracting auth-                 Centre, Kirchberg.
ority in so far as it fulfils the three conditions laid down in that
article. SIEPSA was set up to meet a need in the general                   The Commission of the European Communities claims that
interest: to help apply penitentiary policy through the                    the Court should:
implementation of programmes and action provided for in the
Plan de Amortización y Creación de Centros Pentenciarios                 1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the specific rules concern-
(Plan for the amortisation and establishment of penitentiary                     ing recognition of diplomas providing access to the
institutions) approved by the Council of Ministers. That general                 profession of psychologist and transposing Directive
interest is of neither a commercial nor an industrial nature.                    89/48/EEC (1) with regard to that profession, the French
Although the company engages in activities of a mercantile                       Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
nature, they are no more than a means of meeting that                            directive;
general interest of a non-commercial and non-industrial nature
(application of the State penitentiary policy). That company is            2.    order the French Republic to pay the costs.
therefore required, despite its being a company subject to
private law, to comply with the provisions of the directive in
all matters relating to the award of its works contracts. In such          Pleas in law and main arguments
circumstances, the tendering procedure at issue should have
been conducted in full compliance with Directive 93/37/EEC                 In France, the profession of psychologist is regulated, particu-
and, in particular, the provisions mentioned in the form of                larly as regards the right to use that professional title.
order sought.                                                              Consequently, France should have adopted the measures
                                                                           necessary in order to comply with Directive 89/48/EEC, and
                                                                           should have notified the Commission thereof.
(1) Council Directive of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination
    of procedures for the award of public works contracts (OJ 1993
    L 199, p. 54).                                                         (1) Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general
                                                                               system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded
                                                                               on completion of professional education and training of at least
                                                                               three years’ duration (OJ L 19 of 24.1.1989, p. 16).


title: Case C-200/10 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 5 May 2011 — Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Commission (Appeal — Arbitration clause — Contract relating to Community support for a project in the context of the ‘eContent’ programme — Termination of the contract by the Commission — Reimbursement of eligible costs — Grounds of the judgment of the General Court)

text:
               25.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 186/7

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 5 May 2011 — Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Commission
   (Case C-200/10 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Arbitration clause - Contract relating to Community support for a project in the context of the ‘eContent’ programme - Termination of the contract by the Commission - Reimbursement of eligible costs - Grounds of the judgment of the General Court)
   2011/C 186/11
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, dikigoros)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: E. Manhaeve, acting as Agent, and by D. Philippe and M. Gouden, avocats)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 February 2010 in Case T-340/07 Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission by which the General Court dismissed an action based on an arbitration clause for an order for payment by the Commission of (i) amounts allegedly owing to the appellant and (ii) damages, following termination of a contract in respect of the Community financial support granted to the ‘e-Content Exposure and Business Opportunities’ (‘EEBO’) project (Contract No EDC-53007 EEBO/27873), concluded in the context of the multiannual Community programme to stimulate the development and use of European digital content on the global networks and to promote linguistic diversity in the information society (‘eContent’ programme)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 9 February 2010 in Case T-340/07 Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission in so far as, by that judgment, the General Court failed to rule on the claim of Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE that, notwithstanding the termination of the EDC-53007 EEBO/27873 contract, the Commission should be ordered to pay it the amount of EUR 172 588,62, corresponding to the costs not already reimbursed by the Commission which were incurred by the appellant in connection with that contract;

               2.

               Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for judgment on that claim of Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE;

               3.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 179, 3.7.2010.


title: Case C-88/14: Action brought on 21 February 2014 — European Commission v European Parliament, Council of the European Union

text:
               5.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 135/24

         Action brought on 21 February 2014 — European Commission v European Parliament, Council of the European Union
   (Case C-88/14)
   2014/C 135/29
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: B. Smulders, B. Martenczuk, G. Wils, Agents)

      Defendants: European Parliament, Council of the European Union

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Article 1, point 1, as well as point 4 to the extent that it introduces a new Article 4b, of Regulation (EU) No 1289/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement (1);

               —

               state that the effects of the annulled provisions and any implementing measure derived therefrom are definitive pending their replacement within a reasonable time-frame by acts adopted in accordance with the Treaty as interpreted by the judgment of the Court;

               —

               order the defendants to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         In subsidiary order, in the event that the Court were to consider the above-mentioned provisions to be inseparable from the rest of the challenged Regulation, the Commission respectfully requests the Court to:

               —

               annul Regulation (EU) No 1289/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement in its entirety;

               —

               state that the effects of the annulled regulation and any implementing measure derived therefrom are definitive pending their replacement within a reasonable time-frame by acts adopted in accordance with the Treaty as interpreted by the judgment of the Court;

               —

               order the defendants to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission seeks the annulment of Article 1, point 1, as well as point 4 to the extent that it introduces a new Article 4b, of Regulation (EU) No 1289/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement. Alternatively, in the event that the Court were to consider the above-mentioned provisions to be inseparable from the rest of the challenged Regulation, the Commission seeks the annulment of the entire regulation.
   The Commission is of the view that the provisions referred to are incompatible with Articles 290 and 291 TFEU to the extent that they foresee the use of delegated acts, since the delegated acts in question do not supplement or amend the legislative act, but implement it.

      (1)  OJ L 347, p 74


title: Case C-17/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van Beroep voor het bedrĳfsleven by judgemnt of that Court of 13 November 2002 in the proceedings between 1. Vereniging voor Energie, Milieu en Water, 2. Amsterdam Power Exchange Spotmarket B.V., and 3. N.V. Eneco and Directeur van de Dienst uitvoering en toezicht energie; Joined party: B.V. Netherlands Elektriciteit Administratiekantoor

text:
C 70/6                   EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                             22.3.2003
The Commission submits, therefore, in reliance on the detailed             II.     a) Is Article 7(5) of the Electricity Directive ( 1) to be
legal submissions in its appeal in case T-5/02, that the                               interpreted as meaning that the prohibition of dis-
contested judgment should be annulled in the event that the                            crimination contained therein is restricted to the
appeal against the Court of First Instance’s judgment in case T-                       requirement that the system operator must not draw
5/02 is successful.                                                                    any distinction in granting access to the system by
                                                                                means of technical rules?
( 1) OJ C 156, 29.06.2002, p. 27.                                                     If so, is an allocation method relating to the cross-
( 2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on                       border transport capacity of electricity to be regarded
     the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ L 395,
                                                                                as a technical rule within the meaning of the abov-
     30.12.1989, p. 1).
( 3) Commission Decision C (2001) 3345 final of 30 October 2001                       ementioned provision?
     declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the common
     market, Case No COMP/M.2416 Tetra Laval/Sidel.                               b) In the event that the allocation method must be
                                                                                regarded as a technical rule or in the event that
                                                                                Article 7(5) of the Electricity Directive is not limited
                                                                                to technical rules, is a rule under which preferential
                                                                                cross-border transport capacity is made available for
                                                                                contracts concluded in connection with a particular
                                                                                public task compatible with the prohibition of dis-
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van
                                                                                crimination contained in that article?
Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven by judgemnt of that Court
of 13 November 2002 in the proceedings between 1. Ver-
eniging voor Energie, Milieu en Water, 2. Amsterdam
                                                                           (1 ) Directive 96/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
Power Exchange Spotmarket B.V., and 3. N.V. Eneco and                           of 19 December 1996 concerning common rules for the internal
Directeur van de Dienst uitvoering en toezicht energie;                         market in electricity (OJ L 27 of 30.01.1997, p. 20).
Joined party: B.V. Netherlands Elektriciteit Administratie-
                               kantoor
                           (Case C-17/03)
                           (2003/C 70/09)
                                                                           Appeal brought on 17 January 2003 by Vela Srl and
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     Tecnagrind SL against the judgment delivered on 7 Nov-
European Communities by judgment of the College van Beroep                 ember 2002 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First
voor het bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade and                 Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases
Industry) of 13 November 2002, received at the Court                       T-141/99, T-142/99, T-150/99 and T-151/99 between Vela
Registry on 16 January 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the               Srl and Tecnagrind SL and the Commission of the
proceedings between 1. Vereniging voor Energie, Milieu en                                        European Communities
Water, 2. Amsterdam Power Exchange Spotmarket B.V., and
3. N.V. Eneco and Directeur van de Dienst uitvoering en
toezicht energie; Joined party: B.V. Netherlands Elektriciteit                                         (Case C-18/03 P)
Administratiekantoor on the following questions:
                                                                                (2003/C 70/10)
I.     a) Can Article 86(2) EC be invoked to justify continuing
           to grant a company which was formerly entrusted
           with the operation of services of general economic
           interest and which entered into certain commitments             An appeal against the judgment delivered on 7 November
           in connection with such operation a special right to            2002 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
           enable it to honour those commitments after the                 the European Communities in Joined Cases T-141/99, T-142/
           particular task assigned to it has been completed?              99, T-150/99 and T-151/99 between Vela Srl and Tecnagrind
                                                                           SL and the Commission of the European Communities was
       b) If this question is answered in the affirmative, is a rule       brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
           which provides for the preferential allocation for a            ties on 17 January 2003 by the appellants, represented by
           period of ten years of half to a quarter (declining             Maurizio Carretta, lawyer.
           over time) of the cross-border transport capacity for
           electricity to the undertaking concerned nevertheless
           invalid because it                                              The appellants claim that the Court should:
           1.    is not proportionate in relation to the — public
                 — interest served thereby;                                1.     As regards the substance,
           2.    affects trade to such an extent as would be                      —     annul Commission Decision C (1999) 540 of
                 contrary to the interests of the Community?                            9 March 1999


title: Case C-169/09: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 March 2010 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic (Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations — Ecodesign requirements for energy-using products — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/13

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 March 2010 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-169/09) (1)

   (Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations - Ecodesign requirements for energy-using products - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   2010/C 221/21
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Schønberg and M. Karanasou Apostolopoulou, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: N. Dafniou, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to take, in the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 2005 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-using products and amending Council Directive 92/42/EEC and Directives 96/57/EC and 2000/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2005 L 191, p. 29)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 2005 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-using products and amending Council Directive 92/42/EEC and Directives 96/57/EC and 2000/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 153, 4.7.2009


title: Case C-284/05: Action brought on 15 July 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Finland

text:
               29.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 271/13

         Action brought on 15 July 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Finland
   (Case C-284/05)
   (2005/C 271/23)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   An action against the Republic of Finland was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 15 July 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by G. Wilms and P. Aalto, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by refusing to calculate and pay own resources which it has not established and made available to the Commission, contrary to Article 26 EC and Article 20 of the Community Customs Code and hence the Community customs tariff, in connection with the duty-free import of defence equipment in the years 1998 to 2002, and by refusing to pay default interest after failing to make own resources available to the Commission, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 9, 10 and 11 of Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 (1) and of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000, (2) and

               2.

               order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Community's own resources consist inter alia of payments arising from the common customs tariff and other customs duties. Member States must establish the amount of duties as soon as they have the necessary information available and must credit those funds to the Community's own resources account within a prescribed period. They must pay interest thereon in the event of delays in crediting resources, as laid down in the Community legislation. Article 296 EC concerns strictly limited exceptional situations, and because of that limited nature those exceptions must not be interpreted broadly. A Member State which intends to rely on those exceptions must, in order to justify the fact that it has not complied with its obligations, provide proof that its activity does not exceed the limits of the situations mentioned above. Regulation (EC) No 150/2003 (3) suspending duties on defence equipment applies only from its entry into force, and it may not be applied retroactively before its entry into force.
   Finland disputes in their entirety both the obligation to provide information and the obligation to pay and the obligation to pay default interest.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources, OJ L 155 of 7.6.1989, p. 1.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources, OJ L 130 of 31.5.2000, p. 1.

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 150/2003 of 21 January 2003 suspending import duties on certain weapons and military equipment, OJ L 25 of 30.1.2003, p. 1.


title: Case C-19/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation (France) lodged on 23 January 2007 — Paul Chevassus-Marche v Groupe Danone SA, Kro beer brands SA (BKSA), Eaux minérales d'Evian SA (SAEME)

text:
               24.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation (France) lodged on 23 January 2007 — Paul Chevassus-Marche v Groupe Danone SA, Kro beer brands SA (BKSA), Eaux minérales d'Evian SA (SAEME)
   (Case C-19/07)
   (2007/C 69/14)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Cour de Cassation
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Paul Chevassus-Marche

      Defendants: Groupe Danone SA, Kro beer brands SA (BKSA), Eaux minérales d'Evian SA (SAEME)
   Question referred
   Is Article 7(2) of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a commercial agent entrusted with a specific geographical area is entitled to commission where a commercial transaction between a third party and a customer belonging to that area has been concluded without any action, either direct or indirect, on the principal's part?

      (1)  OJ L 382, 1986, p. 17.


title: Case C-287/99: Action brought on 30 July 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

text:
C 281/10              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     2.10.1999
The nationality requirement laid down in Article 134 the               represented by Hendrik van Lier and Léna Ström, Legal
Consolidated Legislation on Public Security thus cannot be             Advisers, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
imposed on service providers established in other countries.           Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner
Such an obstacle is discriminatory and therefore contrary to           Centre, Kirchberg.
Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49
EC). The effect of such legislation is to deny undertakings            The Commission of the European Communities claims that
established in other countries of the Community any chance             the Court should:
of providing security services in Italy so long as they retain a
head office in another country.                                        — declare that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary in
                                                                            order to ensure complete and correct transposition of
                                                                            Council Directive 89/369/EEC of 8 June 1989 on the
                                                                            prevention of air pollution from new municipal waste
                                                                            incineration plants (1) and Council Directive 89/429/EEC
                                                                            of 21 June 1989 on the reduction of air pollution from
                                                                            existing municipal waste-incineration plants (2), the
                                                                            Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht                     under Articles 6 and 8 of Directive 89/369/EEC and
Korneuburg (Austria) by order of 5 July 1999 in the case                    Articles 2, 6 and 7 of Directive 89/429/EEC;
 of New Yorker S.H.K. Jeans GmbH v Ing. Jaroslav Kupco                 — order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                        (Case C-284/99)
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
                        (1999/C 281/19)                                The Commission proposes to limit the present proceedings to
                                                                       the Brussels-Capital Region.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 5 July 1999 from the                  In relation to Directive 89/369/EEC, the Commission refers to
Landesgericht Korneuburg (Regional Court, Korneuburg) (Aus-            a series of respects in which the rules applying to Brussels are
tria), which was received at the Court Registry on 29 July             not in conformity with the directive, particularly as regards the
1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of New Yorker               absence of any obligation on the authorities requiring them to
S.H.K. Jeans GmbH v Ing. Jaroslav Kupco on the following               take action in the event that standards are exceeded and the
question:                                                              absence of any detailed provisions regarding the obligations
                                                                       incumbent on undertakings.
On a proper construction of Article 1 thereof, is Council
Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 of 22 December 1994 laying                  In relation to Directive 89/429/EEC, the Commission declares
down measures to prohibit the release for free circulation,            that Articles 6(3) to (5) and 7(1) and (2) of the directive have
export, re-export or entry for a suspensive procedure of               not been transposed.
counterfeit and pirated goods (1) also applicable to situations
in which goods of the type specified therein are, in the course
of transit between two States not belonging to the European            (1) OJ L 163 of 14.6.1989, p. 32.
                                                                       (2) OJ L 203 of 15.7.1989, p. 50.
Community, temporarily detained by customs authorities in a
Member State on the basis of that regulation, at the request of
a holder of rights who claims that his rights have been
infringed and whose undertaking has its registered office in a
Member State of the European Community?
(1) OJ L 341 of 30.12.1994.                                            Appeal brought on 3 August 1999 by Schiocchet, a
                                                                       company incorporated under French law, against the
                                                                       order made on 21 May 1999 by the First Chamber of the
                                                                       Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
                                                                       Joined Cases T-169/98 and T-170/98 between Schiocchet
                                                                           and the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case C-289/99 P)
Action brought on 30 July 1999 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                                             (1999/C 281/21)
                            Belgium
                                                                       An appeal against the order made on 21 May 1999 by the
                        (Case C-287/99)                                First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                       Communities in Joined Cases T-169/98 and T-170/98 between
                                                                       Schiocchet and the Commission of the European Communities
                        (1999/C 281/20)                                was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                       Communities on 3 August 1999 by Schiocchet, represented
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before            by Pascal Barbier, of the Thionville Bar, with an address for
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 30 July            service in Luxembourg at the offices of the Viva Vacances
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,                    agency, 33 Rue de Strasbourg.


title: Case C-337/13: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 May 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Almos Agrárkülkereskedelmi Kft v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Közép-magyarországi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 90 — Reduction of the taxable amount — Extent of obligations of Member States — Direct effect)

text:
               7.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/11

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 May 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Almos Agrárkülkereskedelmi Kft v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Közép-magyarországi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága
   (Case C-337/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 90 - Reduction of the taxable amount - Extent of obligations of Member States - Direct effect))
   2014/C 212/11
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Kúria

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Almos Agrárkülkereskedelmi Kft

      Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Közép-magyarországi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Kúria — Interpretation of Article 90(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Compatibility with the directive of national legislation which does not provide for the possibility of adjusting the taxable amount in the case of non-performance of a contract

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The provisions of Article 90 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as not precluding a national provision which does not provide for the reduction of the taxable amount for value added tax in the case of non-payment of the price if the derogation provided for in Article 90(2) is applied. However, that provision must then mention all the other situations in which, under Article 90(1), after a transaction has been concluded, part or all of the consideration has not been received by the taxable person, which is a matter for the national court to ascertain.

               2.

               Taxable persons may rely on Article 90(1) of Directive 2006/112 before national courts against the Member State to obtain a reduction of their taxable amount for value added tax. While Member States may provide that the exercise of the right to a reduction of that taxable amount is conditional on compliance with certain formalities which serve to prove in particular that, after the transaction was concluded, part or all of the consideration was definitely not received by the taxable person and that the taxable person was able to rely on one of the situations referred to in Article 90(1) of Directive 2006/112, the measures thus adopted cannot exceed what is necessary for that proof, which is for the national court to ascertain.

      (1)  OJ C 304, 19.10.2013.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2004 in Case T-317/02: Fédération des industries condimentaires de France (FICF), Confédération générale des producteurs de lait de brebis and des industriels de Roquefort, Comité économique agricole régional ‘fruits et légumes de la région Bretagne’ (Cerafel) and Comité national interprofessionnel des palmipèdes à foie gras (CIFOG) v Commission of the European Communities (Common commercial policy — World Trade Organisation (WTO) — Regulation (EC) No 3286/94 — Obstacles to trade — Prepared mustard — Termination of the examination procedure in relation to obstacles to trade — Community interest)

text:
               19.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/22

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 14 December 2004
   in Case T-317/02: Fédération des industries condimentaires de France (FICF), Confédération générale des producteurs de lait de brebis and des industriels de Roquefort, Comité économique agricole régional ‘fruits et légumes de la région Bretagne’ (Cerafel) and Comité national interprofessionnel des palmipèdes à foie gras (CIFOG) v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Common commercial policy - World Trade Organisation (WTO) - Regulation (EC) No 3286/94 - Obstacles to trade - Prepared mustard - Termination of the examination procedure in relation to obstacles to trade - Community interest)
   (2005/C 45/49)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-317/02, Fédération des industries condimentaires de France (FICF), established in Paris (France), Confédération générale des producteurs de lait de brebis and des industriels de Roquefort, established in Millau (France), Comité économique agricole régional ‘fruits and légumes de la région Bretagne’ (Cerafel), established in Morlaix (France), Comité national interprofessionnel des palmipèdes à foie gras (CIFOG), established in Paris (France), represented by O. Prost and M.-J. Jacquot, lawyers, against the Commission of the European Communities (Agents: P-J. Kuijper and G. Boudot, with an address for service in Luxembourg) – action for annulment of Commission Decision 2002/604/EC of 9 July 2002 terminating the examination procedures concerning obstacles to trade within the meaning of Council Regulation (EC) No 3286/94, consisting of trade practices maintained by the United States of America in relation to imports of prepared mustard (OJ 2002 L 195, p. 72) – the Court of First Instance (First Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, P. Mengozzi, M. E. Martins Ribeiro, F. Dehousse and I. Labucka, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 December 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders the applicants to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 323 of 21.12.2002.