title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 15 February 1996 in Case C-209/94 P: Buralux SA, Satrod SA and Ourry SA v. Council of the European Union (Appeal - Transfer of waste)

text:
No C 133 /4           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         4 . 5 . 96
of capital duty and subsequently, with effect from 1 January               producers who had adopted milk production
1986, by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985,                     development plans under Council Directive
precludes the application of national laws maintaining at                  72/1 59/EEC of 17 April 1972 on the modernization of
1,20% the rate of registration duty on contributions of                    farms.
movable property made in the context of a merger.
                                                                      2 . No requirement flowing from the protection afforded
(>) OJ No C 233 , 20 . 8 . 1994 .                                          by general principles of law, such as the protection
    OJ No C 304, 29 . 10 . 1994 .                                          of legitimate expectations, the prohibition of
                                                                           discrimination, proportionality and legal certainty, or
                                                                           by fundamental rights, such as the right to property and
                                                                           the freedom to pursue a trade or profession, imposes on
                                                                           the competent national authority any obligation, under
                                                                           the first indent of Article 3 (1 ) of Regulation (EEC)
                                                                           No 857/84, to grant special reference quantities to
                                                                           producers who have adopted development plans, even
                                                                           where those plans had been approved by the competent
                                                                           authorities .
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                      3 . Consideration of the abovementioned general principles
                       ( Sixth Chamber )                                   and fundamental rights has not disclosed any factor of
                    of 15 February 1996                                    such a nature as to affect the validity ofthe first indent of
                                                                           Article 3 (1 ) of Regulation (EEC) No 857/84.
in Case C-63/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Supreme Court of Ireland ): Fintan Duff and Others v.
Minister for Agriculture and Food, and the Attorney                   (*) OJ No C 112 , 22 . 4 . 1993 .
                             General ( 1 )
(Additional levy on milk — Special reference quantities on
account of a development plan — Obligation or
                    discretionary power)
                          ( 96/C 133/06 )
               (Language of the case: English)                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Sixth Chamber )
                                                                                of 15 February 1996
In Case C-63/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177 of         in Case C-209/94 P: Buralux SA, Satrod SA and Ourry SA
the EC Treaty from the Supreme Court of Ireland for a                             v. Council of the European Union (^
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                              (Appeal — Transfer of waste)
court between Fintan Duff and Others and Minister for
Agriculture and Food, and the Attorney General — on the                                         ( 96/C 133/07 )
interpretation and validity of the first indent of Article 3(1 )
of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984
adopting general rules for the application of the levy referred                       (Language of the case: French)
to in Article 5c of Regulation ( EEC ) No 804/68 in the milk
and milk products sector ( OJ No L 90, 1984, p . 13 ) — the
Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of C. N. Kakouris,                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch ( Rapporteur ), G. F.                       published in the European Court Reports)
Mancini , F. A. Schockweiler and P. J. G. Kapteyn, Judges;
G. Cosmas, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 February                In Case C-209/94 P: Buralux SA, Satrod SA and Ourry SA
1996 , in which it rules :                                            ( represented by Pierrot Schiltz, Jean-Claude Fourgoux and
                                                                      Christian Huglo ) — appeal against the order of the Court of
                                                                      First Instance of 17 May 1994 in Case T-475/93 Buralux
                                                                      SA, Satrod SA and Ourry SA v. Council ( not published in the
1 . The first indent of Article 3 (1 ) of Council Regulation          ECR ), seeking to have that order set aside,. the other party to
    (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general                 the proceedings being the Council of the European Union
    rules for the application of the levy referred to in              ( Agents : Arthur Alan Dashwood and Bjarne Hoff-Nielsen )
    Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk              — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of C. N. Kakouris,
    and milk products sector, read in the light of the third          President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch, G. F. Mancini , F. A.
    recital in the preamble to that Regulation, is to be              Schockweiler and P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ), Judges;
    construed as not imposing on Member States an                     C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General; R. Grass , Registrar, has
    obligation to grant a special reference quantity to               given a judgment on 15 February 1996 , in which it:
 ---pagebreak--- 4 . 5 . 96            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 133/5
1 , dismisses the appeal;                                                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Second Chamber )
2 , orders the appellants to pay the costs.                                             of 15 February 1996
                                                                     in Case C-3 09/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                     the Tribunal de Commerce, Lyon ): Nissan France and
(') OJ No C 254, 10 . 9 . 1994 .                                     Others v. Jean-Luc Dupasquier du Garage Sport Auto and
                                                                                Others ( 1 )
                                                                     (Competition — Vehicle distribution — Regulation (EEC)
                                                                     No 123/85 — Applicability as against third parties —
                                                                     Parallel importer — Simultaneous conduct of business as
                                                                       both authorized intermediary and independent reseller)
                                                                                ( 96/C 133/09 )
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                      ( Second Chamber )                                            (Language of the case: French)
                     of 15 February 1996
in Case C-226/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal de Commerce, Albi ): Grand Garage Albigeois
           SA and Others v. Garage Massol Sàrl ( ! )                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
(Competition — Vehicle distribution — Regulation (EEC)                       published in the European Court Reports)
No 123/85 — Applicability as against third parties —
                     Independent reseller)
                          ( 96/C 133/08 )
                                                                     In Case C-309/94 — reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                     the Tribunal de Commerce, Lyon, in the proceedings
                (Language of the case: French)                       pending before that court between Nissan France and
                                                                     Others v . Jean-Luc Dupasquier du Garage Sport Auto and
                                                                     Others — the Court - ( Second Chamber ), composed of
                                                                     G. Hirsch, President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini and
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                   F. A. Schockweiler ( Rapporteur ), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo
                                                                     Colomer, Advocate-General ; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for
                                                                     the Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 February 1996 , the
                                                                     operative part of which as follows :
In Case C-226/94 — reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal de Commerce, Albi, in the proceedings pending
before that court between Grand Garage Albigeois SA and
Others v. Garage Massol Sari — the Court ( Second
Chamber ), composed of G. Hirsch, President of the                   Commission Regulation (EEC) No 123/85 of 12 December
Chamber, G. F. Mancini and F. A. Schockweiler                        1984 on the application of Article 85 (3) of the EC Treaty
( Rapporteur ), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,                      to certain categories of motor vehicle distribution and
Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the                 servicing agreements must be interpreted as not preventing a
Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 February 1996 , the                 trader who is neither an approved reseller in the distribution
operative part of which is as follows :                              network of a manufacturer of a particular make of motor
                                                                     vehicle nor an authorized intermediary within the meaning
                                                                     of Article 3 (11 ) of that Regulation from undertaking
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 123/85 of 12 December                 parallel imports and operating as an independent reseller of
1 984 on the application ofArticle 85 (3) of the EC Treaty to        new vehicles ofthat make. Nor does that Regulation prevent
certain categories of motor vehicle distribution and                 an independent trader from carrying on at the same
servicing agreements must be interpreted as not preventing a         time the businesses of authorized intermediary and that
trader who is neither an approved reseller in the distribution       of non-approved reseller of vehicles acquired by way
network of a manufacturer of a particular make of motor              of parallel imports.
vehicle nor an authorized intermediary within the meaning
of Article 3 (11 ) of that Regulation, from carrying on an
independent business reselling new vehicles of that make.
                                                                     (<) OJ No C 380, 31 . 12 . 1994 .
0 ) OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994 .


title: Case F-90/07: Action brought on 17 September 2007 — Traore v Commission

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/72

         Action brought on 17 September 2007 — Traore v Commission
   (Case F-90/07)
   (2007/C 269/131)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Amadou Traore (Rhodes Saint Genèse, Belgium) (represented by: E. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision rejecting the applicant's candidature for the post of chargé d'affaires ad interim at the Commission Delegation in Togo, to which Mr X was appointed;

               —

               annul Mr X's appointment to the post;

               —

               annul the decision rejecting the applicant's candidature for the post of Head of Operations at the Commission Delegation in Tanzania, to which Mr Y was appointed;

               —

               annul Mr Y's appointment to the post;

               —

               order the defendant to pay, by way of compensation for the non-material damage and the detriment to the applicant's career, in the sum of EUR 3 500;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of his action, the applicant relies, first, on breach of the recruitment procedure, inasmuch as (i) the level of the posts at issue was set at Grades AD 9 to AD 14, in breach of the principles laid down, principally in the judgment in Economidis v Commission
       (1), and (ii) the notice of vacancy for the first of the posts at issue and the order of priority laid down in Article 29(1) of the Staff Regulations of Official of the European Communities (‘the Staff Regulations’) were not complied with. He adds that the comparative examination of the merits was not carried out, demonstrating the existence of a misuse of powers and a breach of the principles of equal treatment and reasonable career prospects.
   The applicant claims, in addition, that the Commission infringed Article 1d(1) of the Staff Regulations, inasmuch as it rejected his candidatures principally because of his African origin.

      (1)  Judgment of 14 December 2006 in Case F-122/05, OJ C 331, 30.12.2006, p. 47.


title: Case T-238/99: Action brought on 15 October 1999 by P.C.P. van Oppen-Veger, trading as Service Station formerly operating as J.P. Veger, against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
8.1.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 6/31
The Commission further infringed its duty to clarify the facts           Action brought on 15 October 1999 by P.C.P. van Oppen-
in a neutral and unprejudiced manner, by giving preference to            Veger, trading as Service Station formerly operating as
Bundesverband deutscher Banken over other parties concerned              J.P. Veger, against the Commission of the European
and presenting the facts in a biased way. The Decision infringes                                   Communities
the obligation to state reasons under Article 253 EC. A
central part of the Decision, the determination of ‘reasonable
                                                                                (Case T-238/99)
remuneration’ at 12 % after tax, is not comprehensible and
the bases of the calculation are not evident. The Commission
also fails to distinguish between the indicative figures for                                       (2000/C 6/55)
return on equity (RoE) and return on investment (RoI) and
confuses rates of return before tax with rates after tax. The
reference to the Crédit Lyonnais decision as a starting-point                               (Language of the Case: Dutch)
for the rate of return used does not satisfy the requirement to
state reasons. Finally, the Commission in the Decision fails
to address essential arguments of the Federal Republic of                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Germany.                                                                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 15 October 1999 by P.C.P. van
                                                                         Oppen-Veger, trading as Service Station formerly operating
                                                                         as J.P. Veger, of Maria Hoop (Netherlands), represented by
                                                                         P.J.M. Brouwers, of the Meerssen Bar.
The Commission based the Decision on a fundamentally                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
incorrect approach by applying for the first time the criterion
of an ’average return’ as the minimum expected return to a               (a) annul, at least in part, the Commission’s decision (C(1999)
capital injection from public funds in a profitably operating                2539 final) (1) of 20 July 1999 concerning State aid granted
public undertaking. It thus exceeded its powers to control aid.              by the Netherlands to 633 service stations in the region
Article 295 EC protects the business activity of the public                  bordering Germany;
sector and thus restricts inter alia the Commission’s jurisdiction
with respect to the application of Article 87(1) EC. Business            (b) order the Commission to pay the costs.
activity of the State excludes the presence of ’aid granted
through State resources’ within the meaning of Article 87(1)
EC in the case of profitable undertakings. The Commission,               Pleas in law and main arguments
extending the concept of aid too far, wrongly applies the
criterion of the capital investor acting in market-economy
conditions to capital injections in profitably operating under-          The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case
takings. The public sector as investor is allowed a broad margin         T-210/99.
of discretion for capital injections in profitably operating
undertakings.
                                                                         (1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
The Commission impermissibly requires an average return as
a minimum expected return for capital injections from public
funds. In so doing the Commission disregards the particular
structure and business activity of WestLB and the particular             Action brought on 18 October 1999 by J.J.L. Alofs, trading
objectives and legal form of the Wfa assets. The Wfa assets              as Auto Service Center Alofs, against the Commission of
absorbed are not comparable with capital which may be freely                              the European Communities
invested but are earmarked for public house-building support
and are directed to the public good rather than to making a
profit. By integrating the Wfa into WestLB, considerable                                          (Case T-239/99)
synergy effects have been achieved.
                                                                                (2000/C 6/56)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: Dutch)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 18 October 1999 by J.J.L. Alofs,
                                                                         trading as Auto Service Center Alofs, of Arnhem (Netherlands),
                                                                         represented by S.C. Struycken-Veenhoff, of the Nijmegen Bar.


title: Case T-124/11: Action brought on 3 March 2011 — Kipré v Council

text:
               30.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 130/19

         Action brought on 3 March 2011 — Kipré v Council
   (Case T-124/11)
   2011/C 130/36
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Stéphane Kipré (Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire) (represented by: J. -C. Tchikaya, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011 amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire, and Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire, to the extent that they concern the applicant;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments raised by the applicant are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-118/11 Attey v Council.


title: Case C-231/17 P: Appeal brought on 3 May 2017 by Vatseva against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 7 April 2017 in Case T-920/16: Vatseva v European Court of Human Rights

text:
               4.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 293/12

         Appeal brought on 3 May 2017 by Vatseva against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 7 April 2017 in Case T-920/16: Vatseva v European Court of Human Rights
   (Case C-231/17 P)
   (2017/C 293/16)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Vatseva (represented by: K. Mladenova, advokat)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Court of Human Rights
   By order of 6 July 2017 the Court of Justice (Eight Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


title: Case T-462/13: Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015 — Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco and Itelazpi v Commission (State aid — Digital television — Aid for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less-urbanised areas in Spain — Decision declaring aid to be partly compatible and partly incompatible with the internal market — Advantage — Service of general economic interest — Article 107(3)(c) TFEU — New aid)

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/36

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015 — Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco and Itelazpi v Commission
   (Case T-462/13) (1)

   ((State aid - Digital television - Aid for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less-urbanised areas in Spain - Decision declaring aid to be partly compatible and partly incompatible with the internal market - Advantage - Service of general economic interest - Article 107(3)(c) TFEU - New aid))
   (2016/C 027/42)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco (Spain) and Itelazpi, SA (Zamudio, Spain) (represented by: initially N. Ruiz García, J. Buendía Sierra, A. Lamadrid de Pablo and M. Muñoz de Juan, then J. Buendía Sierra and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier, B. Stromsky and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: SES Astra (Betzdorf, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. González Díaz, F. Salerno, V. Romero Algarra, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2014/489/EU of 19 June 2013 on State aid SA.28599 [(C 23/2010) (ex NN 36/010, ex CP 163/2009)] implemented by the Kingdom of Spain for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less-urbanised areas (other than Castilla-La Mancha) (OJ 2014 L 217, p. 52).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco (Spain) and Itelazpi, SA to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and by SES Astra in the main proceedings;

               3)

               Orders Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco and Itelazpi to bear their own costs relating to the interim proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 304, 19.10.2013.


title: Case C-366/11: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 May 2012 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directive 2000/60/EC — European Union action in the field of water policy — River basin management plans — Publication and notification to the Commission — Lack — Public information and consultation concerning the draft management plans — Lack)

text:
               7.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/5

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 May 2012 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-366/11) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 2000/60/EC - European Union action in the field of water policy - River basin management plans - Publication and notification to the Commission - Lack - Public information and consultation concerning the draft management plans - Lack)
   2012/C 200/08
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: I. Hadjiyiannis and A. Marghelis, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: T. Materne and J.-C. Halleux, Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed periods, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1) — Failure to prepare river basin management plans within the meaning of Article 13(2), (3) and (6) and Article 15(1) of the Directive — Public information and consultation procedure concerning the drafts of those plans — Lack

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by not having prepared, within the prescribed period, all the river basin management plans, both for river basin districts lying entirely within its territory and for international river basin districts, and by not having communicated to the European Commission a copy of those plans, within the prescribed period, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(2), (3) and (6) and Article 15(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy and, furthermore, that by not having commenced, within the prescribed period, all the public information and consultation procedures concerning the draft river basin management plans, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(1)(c) of that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 298, 8.10.2011.


title: Case C-517/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 15 November 2012 — CTP v Regione Campania

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/34

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 15 November 2012 — CTP v Regione Campania
   (Case C-517/12)
   2013/C 26/64
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: CTP — Compagnia Trasporti Pubblici SpA

      Defendant: Regione Campania

      Question referred

   Does the right to compensation arise, for the purposes of Article 4 of Regulation No 1191/69, (1) only where, following the submission of an appropriate application, the competent authorities have not terminated the public service obligation which imposes an economic disadvantage on the transport undertaking, or is that provision applicable only in respect of service obligations which are to be terminated and cannot be maintained under the regulation?

      (1)  Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 of the Council of 26 June 1969 on action by Member States concerning the obligations inherent in the concept of a public service in transport by rail, road and inland waterway, (OJ 1969 L 156, p. 1).


title: Case T-226/17: Action brought on 19 April 2017 — Adapta Color v EUIPO — Coatings Foreign IP (Rustproof System ADAPTA)

text:
               26.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 202/24

         Action brought on 19 April 2017 — Adapta Color v EUIPO — Coatings Foreign IP (Rustproof System ADAPTA)
   (Case T-226/17)
   (2017/C 202/39)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Adapta Color, SL (Peniscola, Spain) (represented by: G. Macías Bonilla, G. Marín Raigal and E. Armero Lavie, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Coatings Foreign IP Co. LLC (Wilmington, Delaware, United States)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Rustproof System ADAPTA’ — European Union trade mark No 9 905 548

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 February 2017 in Case R 2408/2015-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               uphold the present action in its entirety;

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the defendant and, where appropriate, the intervener, to pay the costs of the present proceedings, as well as the costs incurred in the proceedings for a declaration of invalidity and the subsequent appeal proceedings before EUIPO.

      Pleas in law

               —

               The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those put forward in Case T-223/17.


title: Case C-277/13: Action brought on 21 May 2013 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

text:
               10.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 233/2

         Action brought on 21 May 2013 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-277/13)
   2013/C 233/02
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Guerra e Andrade and F.W. Bulst, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic

      Form of order sought

   The Commission claims that the Court of Justice should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to take the necessary measures for the organisation of a selection procedure for suppliers authorised to provide groundhandling, ramp handling and freight and mail handling services at Lisbon, Porto and Faro airports, in accordance with Article 11 of Directive 96/67/EC, (1) the Portuguese State has failed to comply with Article 11 of Council Directive 96/67/EC of 15 October 1996 on access to the groundhandling market at Community airports;

               —

               order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Having failed to open up its groundhandling market to suppliers, the Portuguese State has acted contrary to European Union law.
   Having limited the number of groundhandling service suppliers authorised to provide groundhandling, ramp handling and freight and mail handling services, the Portuguese State was required to organise a selection procedure in accordance with Article 11 of Directive 96/67/EC. The procedure should also have been organised following consultation with the Airport Users’ Committee. Moreover, pursuant to Article 11(1)(d) of Directive 96/67/EC, suppliers are to be selected for a maximum period of seven years.

      (1)  OJ 1996 L 272, p. 36.


title: Case C-64/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Linz (Austria) lodged on 19 February 2008 — Criminal proceedings against Ernst Engelmann

text:
               9.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 116/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Linz (Austria) lodged on 19 February 2008 — Criminal proceedings against Ernst Engelmann
   (Case C-64/08)
   (2008/C 116/15)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Landesgericht Linz
   Party to the main proceedings
   Ernst Engelmann
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 43 EC (Treaty establishing the European Community, in the version of 2 October 1997, most recently amended by the Treaty of 25 April 2005 concerning the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union (OJ 2005 L 157, p. 11)) to be interpreted as precluding a provision which provides that only public limited companies established in the territory of a particular Member State may there operate games of chance in casinos, thereby necessitating the establishment or acquisition of a company limited by shares in that Member State?

               2.

               Are Articles 43 EC and 49 EC to be interpreted as precluding a national monopoly on certain types of gaming, such as games of chance in casinos, if there is no consistent and systematic policy whatsoever in the Member State concerned to limit gaming, inasmuch as national licensed organisers encourage participation in gaming — such as public sports betting and lotteries — and advertise such gaming (on television and in newspapers and magazines) in a manner which goes as far as offering a cash payment for a lottery ticket shortly before the lottery draw is made (‘TOI TOI TOI — Believe in luck!’)?

               3.

               Are Articles 43 EC and 49 EC to be interpreted as precluding a provision under which all licences granting the right to operate games of chance and casinos are issued for a period of 15 years on the basis of a scheme under which Community competitors (not belonging to that Member State) are excluded from the tendering procedure?


title: Case T-267/14: Action brought on 23 April 2014  — Zehnder Group International v OHIM — Stiebel Eltron (comfotherm)

text:
               24.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/33

         Action brought on 23 April 2014 — Zehnder Group International v OHIM — Stiebel Eltron (comfotherm)
   (Case T-267/14)
   2014/C 194/43
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Zehnder Group International AG (Gränichen, Switzerland) (represented by: J. Krenzel, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Stiebel Eltron GmbH & Co. KG (Holzminden, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 21 February 2014 in Case R 1318/2013-4;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the word mark ‘comfotherm’ for goods in Classes 9 and 11 — Community trade mark No 8 8 59  472

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Stiebel Eltron GmbH & Co. KG

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: the word mark ‘KOMFOTHERM’ for goods in Class 11

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: the application for a declaration of invalidity was granted

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law: the contested decision does not stand up to scrutiny as regards the finding in respect of the similarity of the goods


title: Case T-91/02: Action brought on 28 March 2002 by Klausner Nordic Timber GmbH & Co. KG against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 156/28                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      29.6.2002
The applicant further submits that Article 8 (4) of the Merger            Pleas in law and main arguments
Control regulation, which constitutes the legal basis of the
present Decision, is only applicable where a concentration has
been implemented. The applicant states, however, that the                 The Communuity Trade          SECURECLIENT
concentration in this case has not been implemented in any
                                                                          Mark concerned:
way.
                                                                          Product or service:           ‘Computer software to protect
Thirdly, the applicant argues that the modalities for the                                               systems       from    unauthorised
divestiture constitute an infringement of Community law.                                                access’, in International Class 9.
According to the applicant, these modalities are dispro-
portionate and exceed the Commission’s competences under
                                                                          Challenged        Decision    Refusal of registration by the
Article 8(4) of the Merger Control Regulation.
                                                                          before the Board of           Examiner.
                                                                          Appeal:
The applicant finally claims that the Commission has failed to
respect the applicant’s procedural rights, in that the Com-               Grounds submitted:            Infringement of Article 7(1)(b)
mission did not respect the applicant’s right to be heard and                                           and (c) of Regulation No 40/94.
relied on information not provided to the applicant.
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on
    the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ L 395 of
    30.12.1989 p. 1; text republished in OJ L 257 of 21.9.1990,
    p. 13).
                                                                          Action brought on 28 March 2002 by Klausner Nordic
                                                                          Timber GmbH & Co. KG against the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
Action brought on 20 March 2002 by Check Point
Software Limited against the Office for Harmonisation in                                           (Case T-91/02)
                       the Internal Market
                                                                                (2002/C 156/56)
                          (Case T-89/02)
                         (2002/C 156/55)                                                    (Language of the case: German)
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal            ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              European Communities on 28 March 2002 by Klausner Nordic
European Communities on 20 March 2002 by Check Point                      Timber GmbH & Co. KG, Wismar (Germany), represented by
Software Limited, represented by Mr Graham Farrington of                  D.O. Reich, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
Farrington & Co Solicitors, Reading (United Kingdom).
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the Decision of the defendant’s First Board of
                                                                          —     annul the Commission’s decision of 15 January 2002 on
      Appeal of 7 January 2002; and
                                                                                State aid granted by Germany to Klausner Nordic Timber
                                                                                GmbH & Co. KG;
—     order the defendant to remit the application to its
      Examination Division for re-examination of Community
      Trade Mark no. 1744168 (SECURECLIENT).                              —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 29.6.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 156/29
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Action brought on 27 March 2002 by Hugo Boss AG
                                                                         against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                                Market
                                                                                (Case T-94/02)
The applicant manages, as general partner, the business of the
company Klausner Nordic Timber GmbH which was founded
in 1997 and built a sawmill in Wismar in 1998. By the                                            (2002/C 156/57)
contested decision, the Commission declared the State aid
which the Federal Republic of Germany granted to the                                       (Language of the case: English)
applicant in relation to the construction and expansion of the
sawmill to be incompatible with the common market.
                                                                         An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                         Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 27 March 2002 by Hugo Boss AG,
The applicant claims, first, that the guarantee in excess of             represented by Mr Emmanuel Baud of Latham & Watkins,
EUR 15,21 million with an aid component of 0,5 % must be                 Paris (France). A further party to the proceedings before the
regarded as ‘de minimis’ aid, thus precluding a Commission               Board of Appeal was Delta Protipos Biomichania Galaktos S.A.
decision ordering the recovery of that aid. The Commission
therefore wrongly applied Article 87 EC by failing to comply             The applicant claims that the Court should:
with Commission Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 (1) and/or the
notice on the de minimis rule for State aid.                             —     annul the contested Decision rendered by the Fourth
                                                                               Board of Appeal in its ruling no. R0053/2001-4 on
                                                                               12 December 2001;
                                                                         —     order that the BOSS Community Trade Mark application
The applicant further submits that the Commission misapplied                   nr 331462 for ice cream be rejected;
Articles 87 and 88 EC and the German Investment Allowance
Law. The Investment Allowance Law of 1999 provides for the               —     order the OHIM to pay the costs.
grant of a tax investment allowance for the acquisition and
manufacture of capital equipment and buildings by businesses
located in the former East Germany and was approved in its
entirety by the Commission. The requirements of the Law are              Pleas in law and main arguments
fulfilled, so that the investment allowance in favour of the
applicant was lawful. The Commission’s decision that the grant           Applicant for the Com-       Delta Protipos         Biomichania
of an investment allowance to the applicant was permissible              munity trade mark:           Galaktos S.A.
only as to 10 % is therefore unlawful.
                                                                         The Community trade          The word mark ‘BOSS’ for certain
                                                                         mark concerned:              goods in classes 29, 30, 31, 32
                                                                                and 33
Moreover, the applicant claims that the decision constitutes an          Proprietor of the right to   Hugo Boss AG
infringement of the prohibition venire contra factum proprium            the trade mark or sign
and the Community principle of the protection of legitimate              asserted by way of oppo-
expectations. Furthermore, the Commission unlawfully failed              sition in the opposition
to consider the actual aid intensity amount and infringed                proceedings:
Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 and Article 253 EC (2).
Finally, the Commission infringed Articles 87, 88 and 253 EC             Trade mark or sign           The German registration of the
by way of its formulaic and inaccurate consideration of the              asserted by way of oppo-     word mark ‘BOSS’ for certain
company Klausner Nordic Timber as a large-scale company.                 sition in the opposition     goods in classes 3, 9, 14, 18,
                                                                         proceedings:                 24 and 25 and the following
                                                                                international registration of this
                                                                                mark as well as the international
                                                                                registration of the word mark
                                                                                ‘BOSS’ for certain goods in class-
(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 of 12 January 2001 on
    the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de
                                                                                es 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33 and the
    minimis aid (OJ 2001 L 10, p. 30).                                                                international registration for these
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying                                       same goods of the word mark
    down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC                                   ‘BOSS HUGO BOSS’.
    Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).
                                                                         Decision of the Oppo-        Rejection of the opposition.
                                                                         sition Division:
                                                                         Decision of the Board of     Dismissal of the appeal intro-
                                                                         Appeal:                      duced by Hugo Boss AG.


title: Action brought on 17 September 1997 by Georges Keiser against Commission of the European Communities (Case T-255/97)

text:
C 357/32              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     22 . 11 . 97
1997 by Fruchthandelsgesellschaft mbH Chemnitz,                        — the direction by the Treuhandanstalt to suspend
Chemnitz, represented by Jiirgen Mielke and Thorsten W.                      banana ripening in April 1993 amounts to an
Albrecht, Rechtsanwalte, Hamburg, with an address for                        'exceptional circumstance'.
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Mr Entringer,
34A Rue Philippe II.                                                    (') OJL 47, 25 . 2 . 1993 , p . 1 .
                                                                        ( ) Case C-68/95 T. Port v. Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und
                                                                            Ernährung [ 1996 \ ECR 1-6065 .
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the decision of the Commission of 9 July 1997
    ( Ref.: VI/6251/97/DE ), pursuant to the first paragraph
    of Article 174 of the Treaty,
                                                                       Action brought on 17 September 1997 by Georges Keiser
— order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs                          against Commission of the European Communities
    pursuant to Article 87 ( 2 ) of the Rules of Procedure .
                                                                                ( Case T-255/97)
                                                                                97/C 357/61 )
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced'in support:
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
By the contested decision, the Commission rejected the
application made by the applicant pursuant to Article 30
of Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 (') for the grant of                   An action against the Commission of the European
additional licences for the import of bananas under the                 Communities was brought before the Court of First
rules on tariff quotas . The applicant, founded on 1 January           Instance of the European Communities on 17 September
1994, is the legal successor of a DDR state-owned                       1997 by Georges Keiser, residing in Asselscheuer
enterprise which had existed since 1953 and had an                      ( Luxembourg), represented by Lucas Vogel, of the Brussels
annual banana-ripening capacity of up to 14 500 tonnes .                Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
In April 1993 , the banana ripening ceased on the direction            applicant's residence, 44 Rue de Grunewald .
of the Treuhandanstalt. Because of the structural problems
in the new Bundeslander, it was not possible for the                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
applicant to complete the necessary modernization process
before the adoption of the ' market organization in
bananas'. Even if it had managed to do that in time, it                — annul the decision of 4 June 1997, notified to the
would, on the basis of the reference years to be taken into                  applicant on 16 June 1997, rejecting his complaint
account under Article 19 ( 2 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/                 concerning the decision of 20 December 1996 refusing
93 , have been allocated an unusually low quota .                            his request for reinstatement in his usual duties in the
Furthermore, it had relied, first, on its banana quota being                 Security Office, Luxembourg,
calculated, because of the special situation in the new
Bundeslander, by reference to the capacity of its                      ■— order the defendant to pay the costs of the
predecessor and, secondly, on the years 1993 to 1995 ,                       proceedings.
when capacity was exceedingly poor, not being used as
reference years for the grant of import licences.
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
In its action, the applicant puts forward the following                The applicant, who is attached to the Security Office in
pleas :                                                                Luxembourg, states, first, that he gave evidence at a
                                                                       hearing on 3 December 1991 in the course of
— the Commission misused its powers in that it failed to               investigations concerning irregularities which had occurred
    recognize that the preconditions for cases of hardship             in the management of the Security Office in Luxembourg
    developed by the Court of Justice in a case with the               and at that hearing revealed details of various improper
    same facts ( 2 ) were satisfied,                                   practices which he had witnessed. Shortly before that
                                                                       hearing, the applicant had participated in tests for a
— the Commission infringed the principle of equal                      general competition. Following that competition,
    treatment under Community law, because, while it                   disciplinary proceedings were commenced against him. He
    was not possible for the applicant to achieve                      was accused of dishonesty during the tests. Following the
    significant turnover in the reference years, it is                 disciplinary proceedings, the applicant received a
    nevertheless being treated, in the same way as all other           reprimand on 11 January 1995 . He had, however, been
                                                                       informed that his services would be made available to the
    Western European undertakings in the fruit trade,
                                                                       Publications Office from 31 July 1992 .
— the applicant's property rights are being interfered
    with and it is being prevented from exercising its right           The applicant puts forward the following pleas in support
                                                                       of his claims :
    to practice a trade freely, since, as a trader offering a
    full selection of fruit, it is highly dependent on banana
    ripening, and, without the grant of additional licences,           — infringement of Articles 90 ( 1 ) and 2 ( 1 ) of the Staff
    the basis for its existence is at risk,                                  Regulations and of the published Commission decision
 ---pagebreak--- 22 . 11 . 97          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 357/33
     'Administrative information' of 7 April 1986 (No 498 ),         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     in so far as the contested decision was signed by a
     head of division posted in Luxembourg and not by the
     Director General for Personnel and Administration,
                                                                     The applicant was employed as a member of the
                                                                     defendant's staff at Ispra . After suffering a skiing accident
                                                                     in March 1982, he took early retirement on 1 March
— infringement of Article 25 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations          1986 on account of partial permanent invalidity. In May
     and of the principle 'non bis in idem', which is                1986 he applied for an increase in the percentage of his
     contained, in particular, in Article 86 ( 3 ) of the Staff      partial invalidity from 28% to 50/55% . After 10 years, in
     Regulations, and a manifest error of assessment, in so          April 1996, the applicant received, as a result, a 14%
     far as the defendant based its refusal to terminate the         increase in the degree of his partial invalidity which
     applicant's temporary secondment to the Publications            brought it up to a total of 42% , a compensation payment
     Office and to reinstate him in his usual duties in the          which was credited to his account on 25 April 1996 .
     Security Office on reasoning relating exclusively to the
     reprimand he received.                                          By his action, the applicant seeks compensation for the
                                                                     damage .suffered by him by reason of the length of time
The applicant claims, in that respect, that the effect of            which it took to process his claim, the period in question
refusing his request on those grounds was to impose a                having lasted from 14 May 1986 until 25 April 1996 , on
second penalty on him for conduct in respect of which                which latter date the payment was made to him.
a definitive disciplinary decision had been taken .
Furthermore, the contested decision implies that the                 The applicant claims compensation for the damage
responsibilities of an official within the Security Office are       suffered as a result of the delay, for the loss culpably
so sensitive that they require a higher level of morality            inflicted on him and for the damage caused by default.
than other departments of the Commission. According to
the applicant, that approach constitutes a manifest error
of assessment. In that respect, he points out that another           According to the applicant, an official who does not
official who was involved in the same disciplinary                   receive a compensation payment until many years after his
proceedings was able to remain in his post, despite the              accident is placed in a considerably worse position than
fact that he carried out very sensitive duties within the            an official in comparable circumstances who receives
'Euratom Security Control' Directorate and received the              payment of the compensation only a short time after the
same reprimand.                                                      accident. Such unequal treatment is in breach of the legal
                                                                     principle prohibiting discrimination. That principle, the
                                                                     counterpart formulation of which is the requirement of
                                                                     equal treatment, prevails over the Staff Regulations of
                                                                     officials of the European Communities, and in this
                                                                     particular case over Article 73 ( 2 ) thereof.
Action brought on 19 September 1997 by Hans C. Herold
   against the Commission of the European Communities                In so far as the defendant seeks to rely on that provision
                                                                     in opposition to the applicant's claim, the applicant will
                        ( Case T-257/97)                             plead that the defendant's obligations even extended to
                          ( 97/C 357/62 )                            securing an amendment to, or supplementation of, the
                                                                     Staff Regulations. Hitherto, however, it has not in fact
                                                                     made any attempt to do so .
               (Language of the case: German)
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 19 September
1997 by Hans C. Herold, residing at Levanto (Italy ),                Action brought on 22 September 1997 by Societa Eridania
represented by Bernd Potthast, Hans-Josef Ruber and                  SpA and Others against the Council of the European
Albert Potthast, Rechtsanwalte, Cologne, with an address                                           Union
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest
Arendt, 8—10 Rue Mathias Hardt.                                                             ( Case T-258/97)
                                                                                ( 97/C 357/63 )
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
— annul the defendant's decision of 20 November 1996 ,
                                                                     An action against the Council of the European Union was
— order the defendant to pay to the applicant                         brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
     compensation in the sum of BF 1 057 567 together                 Communities on 22 September 1997 by Societa Eridania
      with 5 % interest from 26 October 1984,                         SpA whose registered office is at Genoa, and Industria
                                                                      Saccarifera Italiana Agroindustriale SpA, whose registered
                                                                      office is at Padua, of the Eridania Group, Societa Sadam
— order the defendant to pay the costs.                               Zuccherifici, a division of S.E.C.I. ( Societa Esercizi


title: Case T-579/17: Action brought on 28 August 2017 — Wall Street Systems UK v ECB

text:
               16.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/47

         Action brought on 28 August 2017 — Wall Street Systems UK v ECB
   (Case T-579/17)
   (2017/C 347/62)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Wall Street Systems UK Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Csaki, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare null and void the decision of the European Central Bank (ECB) on the contract award to another tenderer in the form of the appeal decision of 17 August 2017, as well as all future decisions related thereto;

               —

               order the defendant to borne the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following pleas in law.
   The applicant is contesting the decision by the defendant regarding the contract award to another tenderer, in the form of the appeal decision of 17 August 2017, with the request for the annulment of this and future associated decisions (particularly any contract award). The aforementioned decision was handed down in breach of Decision (EU) 2016/245 of the European Central Bank (1) and applicable European law, in particular in breach of the principles of transparency, non-discrimination and cost-efficiency.

      (1)  Decision (EU) 2016/245 of the European Central Bank of 9 February 2016 laying down the rules on procurement (OJ 2016, L 45, p. 15).


title: Case T-423/05 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 29 January 2007 — Olimpiaki Aeroporia Ipiresies v Commission (Interim measures — Suspension of operation — State aid — Urgency)

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/37

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 29 January 2007 — Olimpiaki Aeroporia Ipiresies v Commission
   (Case T-423/05 R)
   (Interim measures - Suspension of operation - State aid - Urgency)
   (2007/C 82/83)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Olimpiaki Aeroporia Ipiresies AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by P. Anestis, S. Mavroghenis, S. Jordan, D. Geradin, lawyers, and T. Soames, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by D. Triantafyllou and T. Scharf, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Application for the suspension of operation of Article 2(1) in combination with Article 1(2) to (4) of the Commission's decision concerning State aid (C 11/2004 (ex NN 4/2003) — Olympic Airways — Restructuring and privatisation) of 14 September 2005.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case T-140/14: Judgment of the General Court of 4 June 2015 — Bora Creations v OHIM (gel nails at home) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark gel nails at home — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               20.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/39

         Judgment of the General Court of 4 June 2015 — Bora Creations v OHIM (gel nails at home)
   (Case T-140/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark gel nails at home - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 236/52)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Bora Creations, SL (Ceuta, Spain) (represented by: R. Lange, G. Hild and E. Schalast, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 December 2013 (Case R 450/2013-1) concerning registration of the word sign gel nails at home as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Bora Creations, SL to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 24 February 2005 in Case C-300/02: Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities (EAGGF — Arable crops — Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 — Article 5(2)(c) — Discrepancies between annual declarations of expenses and eligible expenses — Time-limit of 24 months — Deduction of the amount of aid to farmers)

text:
               30.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/3

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 24 February 2005
   in Case C-300/02: Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (EAGGF - Arable crops - Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 - Article 5(2)(c) - Discrepancies between annual declarations of expenses and eligible expenses - Time-limit of 24 months - Deduction of the amount of aid to farmers)
   (2005/C 106/04)
   Language of the case: Greek
   In Case C-300/02: Action for annulment under Article 230 EC, brought on 21 August 2002 — Hellenic Republic (Agents: I. Chalkias and G. Kanellopoulos) v Commission of the European Communities (Agent: M. Condou-Durande and N. Korogiannakis, avocat) — Action for annulment under Article 230 EC, brought on 21 August 2002 — the Court (First Chamber Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts, N. Colneric (Rapporteur), E. Juhász and M. Ilešič, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 24 February 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision 2002/524/EC of 26 June 2002, excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the (European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), in so far as it excludes from Community financing expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic in the arable crops sector prior to 20 August 1999, to the extent that that expenditure is affect by the correction because of discrepancies between the expenses declared and the areas eligible for aid notified;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the application;

               3.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 247 of 12.10. 2002.


title: Case T-362/10: Action brought on 27 August 2010 — Vtesse Networks v Commission

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/57

      Action brought on 27 August 2010 — Vtesse Networks v Commission
      (Case T-362/10)
      ()
      (2010/C 288/106)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: Vtesse Networks Ltd (Hertford, United Kingdom), (represented by: H. Mercer QC, Barrister)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  Declare the application admissible;

                  —

                  Annul paragraph 72 of Commission Decision C(2010) 3204 in state aid case N 461/2009 (OJ 2010 C 162, p. 1); and

                  —

                  Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs incurred in this action.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      By means of the present application, the applicant seeks, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, the annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 3204 in state aid case N 461/2009 (OJ 2010 C 162, p. 1), whereby it has been decided that the aid measure ‘Cornwall & Isles of Scilly Next Generation Broadband’, providing aid from the European Regional Development Fund to support the deployment of next generation broadband networks in the Cornwall & Isles of Scilly region, is compatible with Article 107(3)(c) TFEU.
      In support of their action, the applicant submits the following pleas in law:

                  Firstly, the applicant alleges that the Commission committed manifest errors in the appreciation of the facts, in particular that the Commission found that:

                              (a)

                              There was an open, non-discriminatory and competitive tender process when it should have found that competition had been eliminated in relation to the tender;

                              (b)

                              Existing infrastructure was available to all bidders on request when the incumbent operator has openly admitted that it did not use infrastructure which was packaged into products and available to all bidders on request;

                              (c)

                              The overall effect on competition was positive when competition was eliminated by the actions of the incumbent operator.

                  In addition, the applicant contends that the Commission fails to apply and/or breaches Article 102 TFEU so that the assessment in the Commission Decision C(2010)3204 of the impact of the measure on competition is invalid and that therefore the said decision is unlawful and not within Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, the relevant abuses for Article 102 TFEU being:

                              (a)

                              Unlawful bundling with respect to existing infrastructure of dark fibre with active electronics;

                              (b)

                              Refusal of access for competing bidders to fibre and/or ducts;

                              (c)

                              Margin squeeze abuse through bundling fibre with active electronics to construct products which do not permit the Applicant or other competitors to compete in the Tender Process.

                  Finally, the applicant argues that the Commission breaches its rights of defence, including in particular failing to open a full investigation under the procedure in Article 108(2) TFEU on the following grounds:

                              (a)

                              In the light of the first and second pleas, it was unlawful to terminate the enquiry under Article 108(3) TFEU and/or not to open a full investigation under Article 108(2) TFEU;

                              (b)

                              Termination of the investigation prior to a formal investigation deprives the Applicant of its procedural rights;

                              (c)

                              Breach of rights of defence through not giving the applicant an opportunity to refute arguments and/or evidence presented by the UK authorities.


title: Case T-394/12: Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Alfastar Benelux SA v Council (Public service contracts — Tender procedure — Technical maintenance and help desk and on-site intervention services for the personal computers, printers and peripherals of the General Secretariat of the Council — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid and award of contract to another tenderer — Decision taken following the annulment by the General Court of an earlier decision — Action for damages)

text:
               19.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/33

      Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Alfastar Benelux SA v Council
      (Case T-394/12) (1)

      (Public service contracts - Tender procedure - Technical maintenance and help desk and on-site intervention services for the personal computers, printers and peripherals of the General Secretariat of the Council - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid and award of contract to another tenderer - Decision taken following the annulment by the General Court of an earlier decision - Action for damages)
      (2015/C 016/53)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Alfastar Benelux SA (Ixelles, Belgium) (represented by: N. Keramidas and N. Korogiannakis, lawyers)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Vitsentzatos, E. Chatziioakeimidou and M. Robert, Agents)

         Re:

      Application, first, for annulment of the decision of the Council of 13 June 2012 not to select the tender submitted by the applicant in response to the restricted call for tenders UCA 218/07, for the provision of technical maintenance and help desk and on-site intervention services for the PCs, printers and peripherals of the General Secretariat of the Council and to award the contract to another tenderer and, secondly, application for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered as a result of the award of the contract to another tenderer.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1)

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2)

                  Orders Alfastar Benelux SA to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 331, 27.10.2012.


title: Case T-38/09: Action brought on 30 January 2009 — El Corte Inglés v Commission

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/52

         Action brought on 30 January 2009 — El Corte Inglés v Commission
   (Case T-38/09)
   (2009/C 69/113)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: El Corte Inglés (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: P. Muñiz and M. Baz, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   This action is brought against Commission Decision C(2008) 6317 final of 3 November 2008 ordering the a posteriori recovery of import duties and finding that the remission of those duties was not justified in a particular case (REM File 03/07).
   The applicant imported textiles from Jamaica, imports subject to the system of preferential treatment laid down in the EU-ACP Association Agreement provided that they are accompanied by a EUR. 1 movement of goods certificate, sent by the competent Jamaican authorities. The certificate was included as evidence that the goods originated in Jamaica. However, an OLAF investigation in Jamaica concluded that the goods did not acquire preferential origin status in Jamaica, so that they could not benefit from preferential treatment.
   In response to the request for remission of the tax submitted by the applicant on the basis of Article 239 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, the contested decision declared that the Jamaican authorities had not committed an error of the kind provided for in Article 220(2)(b) of that regulation and that the applicant was not in a special situation as a result of the incorrect representation of the facts by the exporters.
   The applicant claims that the contested decision is null and void for the following reasons:

               —

               The administrative procedure for the adoption of the contested decision infringes essential procedural requirements. Specifically, the contested decision breaches the principle of sound administration and seriously infringes the applicant's rights of defence on the ground that no administrative file exists concerning the processing of the contested decision.

               —

               The contested decision contains an error of assessment by concluding that the applicant is not in a special situation. In this case a special situation exists in so far as:

                           —

                           the Jamaican authorities knew or ought to have known that that the goods did not satisfy the conditions laid down for entitlement to the preferential treatment, even if the exporters had supplied incorrect information,

                           —

                           the Jamaican authorities committed a serious breach of their obligations.

               —

               The defendant failed to fulfil its obligation to ensure the ACP-EC Agreement is properly applied.


title: Case T-606/13: Action brought on 14 November 2013 — Léon Van Parys v Commission

text:
               25.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/31

         Action brought on 14 November 2013 — Léon Van Parys v Commission
   (Case T-606/13)
   2014/C 24/57
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Firma Léon Van Parys NV (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: P. Vlaemminck, B. Van Vooren and R. Verbeke, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the letter of the Commission in which it requests supplementary information from the Belgian Administration of Customs and Excise pursuant to Article 907 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93; and the letter of the European Commission of 16 September 2013 in which it informs Firma Léon Van Parys of that request and the suspension of the treatment period pursuant to Article 907 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93;

               —

               declare that Article 909 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 has fully taken effect to the benefit of the applicant after the Court’s judgment in Case T-324/10 of 19 March 2013 relating to File REM/REC 07/07;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging breach by the Commission of Articles 907 and 909 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93, (1) as well as Article 266(1) TFEU. The applicant argues that the decision deadline of nine months, in accordance with the first-named provisions, had expired, and that the Commission as a result no longer had the competence to decide on the application for remission. As a result, the Commission is no longer competent in so far as it acts in a manner which goes beyond the pure regularisation of the decision partly annulled by the judgment of 19 March 2013 in Case T-324/10 Firma Léon Van Parys v Commission.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging breach of Article 907 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 and of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, concerning the right to good administration. The applicant claims that the Commission makes unlawful use of the possibility of requesting information, and thus suspending the deadline of nine months, in order to avoid a future application of Article 909 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93, or at least to postpone it. It also constitutes breach of the principle of good administration for the Commission — as regards an issue for which a deadline of nine months in principle applies — to have conferred upon itself the right to institute a full investigation in 2013 into an application for remission that was submitted at the end of 2007 relating to imports from 1999.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1).


title: Case T-131/10: Action brought on 22 March 2010 — Saupiquet v Commission

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/34

         Action brought on 22 March 2010 — Saupiquet v Commission
   (Case T-131/10)
   2010/C 148/60
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Saupiquet (Courbevoie Cedex, France) (represented by: R. Ledru, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul, in full, Commission Decision No REM 07/08 of 16 December 2009;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 10005 final of 16 December 2009, informing the French authorities that the repayment to the applicant of import duties on cans of tuna originating in Thailand is not justified (file REM 07/08).
   In support of its action, the applicant submits that the Commission failed to fulfil its obligation to guarantee that importers, established in France or in other Member States in which customs offices are legally closed on Sundays, who lodged their customs declarations on Monday 2 July 2007 would have equal and non-discriminatory access to quota No 09.2005 for the period 2007/2008,

               —

               by not taking, in the circumstances of the present case in which that quota was opened on Sunday, 1 July 2007, regulatory measures that would have made it possible to treat those importers in a manner that is equal and free from discrimination;

               —

               by not postponing the date of opening of that quota until Monday, 2 July 2007, even though the quota in question was very critical.


title: Case T-333/09: Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2012 — Poland v Commission (EAGGF — Modulation — Allocation between the Member States of savings made — Distinction between the old Member States and those which acceded to the European Union in 2004 — Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 — Solidarity — Equal treatment — Duty to state reasons)

text:
               10.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/13

         Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2012 — Poland v Commission
   (Case T-333/09) (1)

   (EAGGF - Modulation - Allocation between the Member States of savings made - Distinction between the old Member States and those which acceded to the European Union in 2004 - Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 - Solidarity - Equal treatment - Duty to state reasons)
   2012/C 343/18
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented: initially by M. Dowgielewicz, and subsequently by M. Szpunar, B. Majczna and D. Krawczyk, Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and M. Owisany-Hornung, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2009/444 of 10 June 2009 allocating the amounts resulting from the modulation provided for in Articles 7 and 10 of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 to the Member States for the years 2009 to 2012 (OJ 2009 L 148, p. 29) in so far as Annex I allocates to Member States for 2012 the amounts resulting from the modulation provided for in Article 9(2) and (3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.


title: Action brought on 9 September 1996 by Valio Ltd against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-137/96)

text:
No C 318/22          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   26 . 10 . 96
and of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality           In the applicant's opinion, that explanation does not
referred to in the 12th recital in the preamble to the              disclose the considerations of fact and law on which the
contested Directive . The applicant further claims that the         Commission based its decision . Specifically, the
principle patere legem quam ipse fecisti has been infringed,        Commission failed to consider the significance of the fact
in that the Commission itself, in its communication of              that the information it decided to divulge constituted
14 December 1993 concerning the application of the                  ' business secrets '.
Protocol on social policy, recognized the applicant as a
representative organization .
                                                                    Action brought on 9 September 1996 by Valio Ltd against
Action brought on 6 September 1996 by Automobiles                          the Commission of the European Communities
Peugeot SA against the Commission of the European
                         Communities                                                       ( Case T-l 37/96
                      ( Case T-136/96 )                                                      ( 96/C 318/40 )
                        ( 96/C 318/39
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
An action against the Commission of the European                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   Instance of the European Communities on 9 September
Instance of the European Communities on 6 September                 1996 by Valio Ltd , represented by Francis Herbert and
1996 by Automobiles Peugeot SA, established at Paris,               Daniel M. Tomasevic , of the Brussels Bar, of Loeff Claesy
represented by Xavier de Roux, of the Paris Bar, with an            Verbeke with an adress for service in Luxembourg at the
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                Chambers of Carlos Zeyen , 67 rue Ermesinde, L-1050
Jacques Loesch, 1 1 rue Goethe .                                    Luxembourg .
The applicant claims that the Court should :                        The applicant claims that the Court should :
— annul the Commission's decision of 19 July 1996
    concerning complaints 35.988 , 35.989 , 35.990 and              — annul the decision contained in a letter adressed by the
    35.991 ,                                                             Commission to the Finnish Permanent Representative to
                                                                        the European Unions ( BI.4 D(96 ) SP/cd/501 ) in so far as
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                               it concerns the 'Voilevi ' and 'Voimariini ' trade marks;
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support                  — alternatively, if the Court finds that the Decision does
                                                                        not infringe Regulation ( EC ) No 2991 /94 , declare,
The applicant, a company which markets Peugeot vehicles                 upholding the applicant's plea of illegality , that
in Europe, challenges the decision taken by the Commission,             Regulation ( EC ) No 2991 /94 is inapplicable to the
as part of the investigation of four complaints questioning             applicant to the extent that it would prohibit the further
the conformity with Community competition rules of the                  use of its trademarks 'Voimariini ' and 'Voilevi ' for the
standard exclusive distribution agreement for those                     spreadable fats concerned,
vehicles , to communicate to the companies which had
submitted the complaints certain information obtained               — order the Commission to pay the costs .
from the applicant.
That decision was taken in spite of the applicant's                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
indications that most of the information was subject to
protection as business secrets, in that it set out the              Valio is a Finnish company in the food sector which
conditions of membership of the Peugeot network and                 manufactures and markets products which are fat mixtures
described the functioning of that network .                         used as spreads, all of which are traded on the Finnish
                                                                    market under the 'Voimariini ' and 'Voilevi ' trade marks
The applicant claims that the case-law as stated in the             registered by Valio in 1980 and 1979 , and which have been
judgment in Case 53/85 AKZO Chemie v. Commission                    used by Valio since then . 'Voi ' in Finnish means butter . The
1986 [ECR ] 1965 has not been observed . It submits that            trade marks 'Voimariini ' and 'Voilevi ' do not have any
while the Commission is the sole judge of the confidentiality       specific meaning.
of the documents supplied to it in an investigation, the
corollary of such a discretion is a strict obligation to state      Under Regulation ( EC ) No 2991 /94 , which sets standards
reasons . According to the applicant, the contested decision        for spreadable fats, 'Voimariini ' is to be labelled under the
is not supported by an adequate statement of reasons . The          sales description ' blend ' while 'Voilevi ' is to be labelled
only explanation given by the Commission does no more               under the sales description ' half-fat blend '.
than assert the need to communicate the information in
question in order to be able to assess what action to take on       By letter dated 21 June 1996 addressed to the Finnish
the complaints, in full knowledge of the facts , after              Representation to the European Union , the Commission
obtaining the observations of those concerned .                     stated that the exclusive use of the sales description ' butter',
 ---pagebreak--- 26 . 10 . 96           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 318 /23
to be found in Article 2 ( 2 ) of the Regulation, applied to               In support of the application it is contended that the
trade marks containing the word ' butter'. Consequently, the               allegedly confusing syllables 'Voi ' in the trade marks do
Commission         informed         the   Finnish     Permanent            not establish any reference or connection whatsoever
Representation that the trade marks 'Voimariini ' and                      with butter outside the Member State where the said
'Voilevi ' may no longer be used , nothwithstanding their                  products have, until now, exclusively been sold, namely
registration long before the Regulation entered into force on              Finland .
1 January 1996 .
                                                                       Furthermore, in Finland the trade marks have been used for
— Annulment of the Commission Decision                                 such a long time, with all necessary and relevant
                                                                       clarifications as to the exact nature of the product, that there
                                                                       is no risk of confusion .
    The applicant claims that the Decision should be
    annulled on the following grounds :
    — there is an infringement of essential procedural
         requirements, in that the Decision was taken
         unilaterally without Valio being given any right to be
         heard in order to make its view known to the                  Action brought on 6 September 1996 by Giovanni Ballone
         Commission ,                                                  Burini against the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                                Communities
    — the Decision is based on an erroneous interpretation                                      Case T-138/96 )
         of the Regulation in that the Regulation does not                                       ( 96/C 318 /41 )
         apply to trade marks, which are to be distinguished
         from sales descriptions,
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
    — Valio 's trade marks should be entitled to derogations
         under Article 2 ( 2 ) of the Regulation, which relates to     An action against the Court of Justice of the European
         products the exact nature of which is clear from the          Communities was brought before the Court of First
         traditional user,                                             Instance of the European Communities on 6 September
                                                                       1996 by Giovanni Ballone Burini , represented by Giancarlo
    — the Decision is also obviously disproportionate .                Piersimoni, of the Ancona Bar, Italy, with an address for
                                                                       service in Luxembourg at the address of Marco Pantanetti ,
— Plea of illegality                                                   17 rue de Dudelange, Kayl .
    Alternatively, if the Court of First Instance finds that the       The applicant claims that the Court should :
    Decision is compatible with Regulation ( EC )
    No 2991 /94, Valio wishes to invoke the plea of illegality         — declare unlawful and therefore annul the decision of
    provided for in Article 184 of the EC Treaty on the                    18 July 1996 of the Selection Board rejecting his
    following grounds :                                                    application to take part in General Competition No
                                                                           CJ/A/ 11 at the Court of Justice of the European
    — the Regulation should have been based on                             Communities ,
         Article 100a or Article 235 of the Treaty and not ( or
         at least not exclusively ) on Article 43 ,                    — order the defendant to pay all the costs of the
                                                                           proceedings .
    — the Regulation infringes the principle of legal
         certainty by broadening, to an extent that is unclear,
         the definition of ' sales description ', which is clearly     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
         set out in Directive 79/ 112/EC relating to the
         labelling of foodstuffs ,                                     The applicant challenges the decision of the Selection Board
                                                                       not to admit him to General Competition No CJ/A/ 1 1
    — the Regulation, which imposes an a priori ban on the             ( administrators with Italian legal training ) on the following
         use of certain trade marks, discriminates against             ground : 'the candidate does not satisfy the language
         holders of trade marks for spreadable fats in                 requirement provided for at paragraph 3B ( 2 ) of the notice
         comparison with holders of trade marks for other              of competition which states that, in the interests of the
         foodstuffs covered by Directive 79/ 112/EC which              service, good knowledge of French is required .' The
         imposes no a priori ban but requires that all the             candidate indicated in his application form that his
         circumstances under which a specific product is sold          knowledge of French was only ' average'. According to the
         are to be taken into account,                                 Selection Board , fulfilment of that requirement should have
                                                                       been declared when submitting the application , that is by
    — the Regulation also infringes the rule of                        28 September 1995 .
         proportionality, given that the provisions of
         Directive 79/ 112/EC relating to misleading                   The applicant seeks the annulment of the abovementioned
         statements show that it is possible to achieve the            decision on the grounds of misuse of powers, its illogical and
         same aim of consumer protection without                       irrational nature, lack of a statement of reasons, mistaken
         necessarily having recourse to an overall ban on the          assumptions and distortion of facts . The application is
         further use of certain trade marks .                          based on the following grounds :