title: Case C-321/99 P: Appeal brought on 27 August 1999 by Associação dos Refinadores de Açúcar Portugueses (ARAP), Alcântara Refinarias - Açúcares SA and RAR Refinarias de Açúcar Reunidas SA, against the judgment delivered on 17 June 1999 by the Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities, in case T-82/96 between Associação dos Refinadores de Açúcar Portugueses (ARAP), Alcântara Refinarias - Açúcares SA and RAR Refinarias de Açúcar Reunidas SA and the Commission of the European Communities, supported by the Portuguese Republic and DAI - Sociedade de Desenvolvimento Agro-Industrial SA

text:
4.12.1999                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 352/19
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van                     such a request, designed to prevent application of Article 3(3)
Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven by decision of 21 July 1999                 of Regulation (EEC) No 1484/95, is still accepted after the
in the case of Kloosterboer Rotterdam BV, previously                      goods have been released?
Vriesveem vof, and Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbe-
                            heer en Visserij                              5.     If the fourth question is answered in the affirmative:
                           (Case C-317/99)
                                                                          Is it in accordance with Community law, in particular
                           (1999/C 352/27)                                Article 220(2), introductory phrase and (b), of Regulation
                                                                          (EEC) No 2913/92 and the principle of the protection of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    legitimate expectations, if subsequent entry in the accounts is
European Communities by decision of 21 July 1999 from the                 made under Article 220(1) of that regulation, where the
College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven (Administrative                 circumstances are as described in the second question?
Court for Trade and Industry), which was received at the Court
Registry on 26 August 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the               6.     If the fifth question is answered in the negative:
case of Kloosterboer Rotterdam BV, previously Vriesveem vof,
and Minister van Landbonw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij (Minister             Must the fifth question also be answered in the negative if the
for Agriculture, Natural Resources and Fisheries) on the                  circumstances outlined in the third question obtain?
following questions:
                                                                          (1) OJ 1995 L 145, p. 47.
1.      Is Regulation (EEC) No 1484/95 (1) valid, in so far as it         (2) OJ 1975 L 282, p. 77.
sets out the provisions of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EEC)               (3) OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.
No 2777/75 (2) which provides that the additional import duty
referred to in Article 5 of the Agreement [on Agriculture, OJ
1994 L 336, p. 22] is determined on the basis of the cif import
price of the consignment in question — in such a way that
such determination can be made only if the importer so
requests and in all other cases the import price of the
consignment in question to be taken into consideration for the            Appeal brought on 27 August 1999 by Associação dos
additional import duty is the representative price referred to in         Refinadores de Açúcar Portugueses (ARAP), Alcântara
Article 2(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1484/95?                              Refinarias - Açúcares SA and RAR Refinarias de Açúcar
                                                                          Reunidas SA, against the judgment delivered on 17 June
2.      If the first question is answered in the affirmative:             1999 by the Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition, of
                                                                          the Court of First Instance of the European Communities,
Is it in accordance with Community law, and in particular with            in case T-82/96 (1) between Associação dos Refinadores
the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, if, in        de Açúcar Portugueses (ARAP), Alcântara Refinarias —
the case where no request has been made under Article 3(1) of             Açúcares SA and RAR Refinarias de Açúcar Reunidas SA
Regulation (EEC) No 1484/95, the customs debt is calculated               and the Commission of the European Communities,
pursuant to Article 3(3) thereof, where:                                  supported by the Portuguese Republic and DAI — Socied-
                                                                                ade de Desenvolvimento Agro-Industrial SA
— the cif price of the consignment in question indicated on
      the declaration is higher than the trigger price;                                            (Case C-321/99 P)
— the declarant was informed by the customs authorities that
      such a request did not have to be made in that case;                                          (1999/C 352/28)
— the declarant acted in good faith in relying on that customs            An appeal against the judgment delivered on 17 June 1999 by
      information; and                                                    the Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of
                                                                          First Instance of the European Communities in case T-82/96
— the declarant otherwise complied with all conditions of the             between Associação dos Refinadores de Açúcar Portugueses
      applicable provisions relating to customs declarations?             (ARAP), Alcântara Refinarias — Açúcares SA and RAR Refinar-
                                                                          ias de Açúcar Reunidas SA and the Commission of the
3.      If the second question is answered in the affirmative:            European Communities, supported by the Portuguese Republic
                                                                          and DAI — Sociedade de Desenvolvimento Agro-Industrial
Does that affirmative answer still apply if, in addition to the           SA, was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
circumstances mentioned in the second question, the declarant             Communities on 27 August 1999 by Associação dos Refina-
in question has taken cognisance of the ‘Verification Notices’            dores de Açúcar Portugueses (ARAP), Alcântara Refinarias —
issued in connection with earlier declarations which he made,             Açúcares SA and RAR Refinarias de Açúcar Reunidas SA,
as reproduced in paragraph 2.2, second indent, of this                    represented by Gerard van der Wal, Advocaat, with an address
decision?                                                                 for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31
                                                                          Grand Rue.
4.      If the second and third questions are answered in the
affirmative:                                                              The appellants claim that the Court should:
Do the provisions of Regulation No 1484/95, in conjunction                — declare their application for appeal to be admissible;
with Article 65 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (3), preclude
the situation in which, where no request was initially made               — set aside in part the judgment of 17 June 1999 of the
under Article 3(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1484/95 because of                  Court of First Instance to the extent described in this
reliance on the information given by the customs authorities,                 application;
 ---pagebreak--- C 352/20                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      4.12.1999
— annul the Decision of the Commission of 11 January 1996                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwal-
     addressed to the Portuguese Government;                             tungsgericht by order of that court of 24 June 1999 in the
                                                                         case of DaimlerChrysler AG against Land Baden-
     or, in the alternative, refer the case back to the Court of                                    Württemberg
     First Instance in accordance with Article 54 of the Statute
     of the Court of Justice;
                                                                                (Case C-324/99)
— order the Commission to pay the costs of both instances.
                                                                                (1999/C 352/29)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by order of the Bundesverwaltungsge-
The Court of First Instance has erred in law in that it has              richt (Federal Administrative Court) of 24 June 1999, received
decided that the Commission decision of 3 July 1991 addressed            at the Court Registry on 30 August 1999, for a preliminary
to the Portuguese government ensures compliance with the                 ruling in the case of DaimlerChrysler AG v Land Baden-
rules applicable to the sugar sector.                                    Württemberg, represented by the Baden-Württemberg Ministry
                                                                         of Traffic and the Environment, on the following questions:
The Court of First Instance has erred in law when it decided that
the Commission was not entitled to examine the application of            1. Is the expression ‘in accordance with the Treaty’ in
Decree-law no. 95/90 to DAI — Sociedade de Desenvolvimen-                    Article 4(3)(a)(i) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 (1)
to Agro-Industrial, SA directly in relation to Article 87 (ex 92)            to be construed as meaning that, in the case of a general
EC.                                                                          prohibition on the export of hazardous waste for disposal,
                                                                             which is warranted by the principles of proximity, priority
                                                                             for recovery and self-sufficiency, a further issue to be
The Court of First Instance has erred in law where it found                  examined is whether the export ban is compatible with
that the individual application of Decree-law no. 95/90 to the               primary EC law, in particular with the ban on quantitative
sugar industry (the state aid to DAI) is not incompatible with               restrictions on trace between the Member States under
aims of the common agricultural policy, as implemented by                    Article 28 of the EC Treaty, in its new version?
the relevant rules.
                                                                         2. If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, in the case of
As far as it is correct that the different types of aid examined             an export ban imposed by legislation and restricted as to
in the contested decision and by the Court of First Instance are             quantity, is review of the legislative provision as such
covered by different sets of legal provisions and therefore must             sufficient or must there be a review of each individual case
be examined individually in the light of those rules and the                 in which an intended export is prohibited under the
aims which they pursue, the Court of First Instance has erred                legislative provision? In that connection is it permissible to
in law by not taking into account in the framework of its                    impose for a fifteen-year period an export ban operated by
review of the legality of the contested decision and the way the             means of a requirement to ship waste to a domestic facility,
Commission has made use of its discretionary power, the                      when at the time that such requirement was imposed, the
effect of the different aid measures taken together (the                     requisite security in the treatment of waste could be
combined effect).                                                            obtained only by a tie of that duration to the operator of
                                                                             that facility?
Articles 87 (ex 92) and 88 (ex 93) EC apply to aid to which
Regulation 866/90 (2) is applicable. The Court of First Instance         3. May the Member States, under Article 4(3) of Regulation
has erred in law when it decided that aid eligible for Com-                  (EEC) No 259/93, apply a rule in the context of delivery
munity co-financing under Regulation 866/90 is not subject                   requirements making the shipment to other Member States
to the application of Articles 87 (ex 92) and 88 (ex 93).                    of hazardous waste for disposal subject to the condition
                                                                             that the intended disposal meet the environmental-law
                                                                             requirements of the state of dispatch?
The Court of First Instance has erred in law in deciding that
the aid is not incompatible with Regulation 866/90. The
judgment of the Court of First Instance is not properly                  4. Is it reconcilable with Articles 3 et seq. of Regulation (EEC)
motivated in this respect, as the Court of First Instance has not            No 259/93 for a Member State to make provision, in the
taken into account the different pleas submitted by the                      case of an intended transborder shipment of waste for
applicants as to the inapplicability of Regulation 866/90.                   disposal, for the notification procedure to be preceded by
                                                                             a procedure of its own at national level concerning the
                                                                             delivery and allocation of such waste?
(1) OJ C 233 of 10.08.1996, p. 15.
(2) Council Regulation (EEC) no. 866/90 of 29 March 1990 on
    improving the processing and marketing conditions for agricul-       (1) OJ 1993 L 30, p. 1.
    tural products (OJ L 91, 6.4.1990, p. 1).


title: Case C-639/11: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 March 2014  — European Commission v Republic of Poland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations  — Registration of motor vehicles  — Articles 34 TFEU and 36 TFEU  — Directive 70/311/EEC  — Directive 2007/46/EC  — Driving on the right in a Member State  — Obligation, for the purpose of registration, to reposition to the left-hand side the steering equipment of passenger vehicles positioned on the right-hand side)

text:
               12.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/3

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 March 2014 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-639/11) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Registration of motor vehicles - Articles 34 TFEU and 36 TFEU - Directive 70/311/EEC - Directive 2007/46/EC - Driving on the right in a Member State - Obligation, for the purpose of registration, to reposition to the left-hand side the steering equipment of passenger vehicles positioned on the right-hand side))
   2014/C 142/03
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Wilms, G. Zavvos and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna and M. Szpunar, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by D. Kriaučiūnas and R. Krasuckaitė, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Article 34 TFEU, of Article 2a of Council Directive 70/311/EEC of 8 June 1970 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the steering equipment for motor vehicles and their trailers, as amended (OJ, English Special Edition 1970(II), p. 375) and of Article 4(3) of Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (OJ 2007 L 263, p. 1) — Legislation of a Member State prohibiting the registration of right-hand-drive vehicles.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by making registration in its territory of passenger vehicles having their steering equipment on the right-hand side, whether they are new or previously registered in other Member States, dependent on the repositioning of the steering wheel to the left-hand side, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2a of Council Directive 70/311/EEC of 8 June 1970 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the steering equipment for motor vehicles and their trailers (OJ 1970 L 133, p. 10), Article 4(3) of Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (Framework Directive) (OJ 2007 L 263, p. 1), and under Article 34 TFEU.

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

               3.

               Orders the Republic of Lithuania to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 73, 10.3.2012.


title: Case T-526/14: Action brought on 14 July 2014  — Matratzen Concord v OHIM — Barranco Rodriguez (Matratzen Concord)

text:
               8.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/52

         Action brought on 14 July 2014 — Matratzen Concord v OHIM — Barranco Rodriguez (Matratzen Concord)
   (Case T-526/14)
   2014/C 303/61
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Matratzen Concord GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: I. Selting, lawyer)

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

      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mariano Barranco Rodriguez and Pablo Barranco Schnitzler (Sant Just Desvern, Spain)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 April 2014 in Case R 1523/2013-1;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs including the costs incurred in the course of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Matratzen Concord’ for goods in Classes 10, 20, 24 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 3 59  404

      Proprietors of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Mariano Barranco Rodriguez and Pablo Barranco Schnitzler

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the national word mark ‘MATRATZEN’ for goods in Classes 20 and 35

      Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1), 41(1)(a) and 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case C-73/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Münster, by order of that court of 26 January 1999, in the case of Viktor Movrin v Landesversicherungsanstalt Westfalen

text:
C 136/10              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       15.5.1999
B. The following further question is referred to the Court of           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
    Justice only in case Question A is answered in the                  Justice, Queen’s Bench Division (Crown Office) (England
    affirmative:                                                        and Wales) by order of that court of 2 February 1999, in
                                                                        the case of the Queen against 1. Secretary of State for
    Is the obligation described at (A) sufficiently specific and        Health, 2. Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, 3.
    precise for individuals thereby to be given the right to a          HM Attorney General, ex parte: 1. Imperial Tobacco Ltd,
    review procedure in accordance with the requirements of             2. Gallaher Ltd, 3. Rothmans (UK) Ltd, 4. British American
    Article 1 of Directive 89/665/EEC, in which the national                               Tobacco Investments Ltd
    court must at least be able to adopt interim measures
    within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) and (b) of Directive
    89/665/EEC and to annul the contracting authority’s                                           (Case C-74/99)
    award decision, and for individuals to be able to rely in
    proceedings on that obligation as against a Member State?
                                                                                (1999/C 136/17)
C. The following further question, finally, is referred to the
    Court of Justice only in case Question B is answered in the
    affirmative:                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by an order of the High Court of
    Is the obligation described at (A) itself sufficiently specific     Justice, Queen’s Bench Division (Crown Office) (England and
    and precise that the national court must in such proceed-           Wales) of 2 February 1999, which has received at the Court
    ings disregard contrary provisions of national law, observ-         Registry on 2 March 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case
    ance of which would prevent the court from fulfilling that          of The Queen against 1. Secretary of State for Health, 2.
    obligation, and must fulfil that obligation directly as part        Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, 3. HM Attorney
    of the Community legal order even if national law lacks             General, ex parte: 1. Imperial Tobacco Ltd, 2. Gallaher Ltd, 3.
    any basis on which to act?                                          Rothmans (UK) Ltd, 4. British American Tobacco Investments
                                                                        Ltd, on the following question:
(1) OJ L 395, 30.12.1989, p. 33.
                                                                        Is Council Directive 98/43 (1) invalid, in whole or in part, by
                                                                        reason of:
                                                                        (a) the inadequacy of Articles 57(2), 66 and 100A as a legal
                                                                             basis;
                                                                        (b) infringement of the fundamental right to freedom of
                                                                             expression;
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht
Münster, by order of that court of 26 January 1999, in
the case of Viktor Movrin v Landesversicherungsanstalt                  (c) infringement of the principle of proportionality;
                           Westfalen
                                                                        (d) infringement of the principle of subsidiarity;
                        (Case C-73/99)
                       (1999/C 136/16)                                  (e) infringement of the duty to give reasons;
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  (f) infringement of Article 222 EC and/or the fundamental
European Communities by order of the Sozialgericht Münster                   right to property?
(Social Court, Münster) of 26 January 1999, which was
received at the Court Registry on 2 March 1999, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Viktor Movrin v Landesver-
sicherungsanstalt Westfalen on the following question:
                                                                        (1) Directive 98/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
                                                                            of 6 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and
Is European Community law infringed where the defendant                     administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the
refuses to grant a subsidy in respect of the cost of Netherlands            advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products (OJ L 213,
sickness insurance to the plaintiff, who receives a normal                  30.7.1998, p. 9).
old-age pension from the defendant?


title: Case C-204/04: Order of the President of the Court of  22 March 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               1.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 154/12

         Order of the President of the Court of 22 March 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-204/04) (1)

   (2006/C 154/26)

      Language of the case: German

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

      (1)  OJ C 201, 07.08.2004.


               20.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 284/13

         Removal from the register of Case C-362/03 (1)

   (2004/C 284/27)
   By order of 22 July 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-362/03: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria.

      (1)  OJ C 264 of 1.11.2003.


title: Case C-383/08: Order of the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of 16 November 2010 — European Commission v Italian Republic

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/30

         Order of the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of 16 November 2010 — European Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-383/08) (1)

   ()
   2011/C 30/48
   Language of the case: Italian
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 22.11.2008.


title: Action brought on 21 September 1998 by Société Générale against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-149/98)

text:
C 358/20              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   21.11.98
recommendation was wrong in law. The Commission's                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
reasoning in its decision is circular and flawed. The
Commission failed to apply correctly the analysis of the
Court of Justice in a leading case (1).                               The applicant contests the decision of the Commission
                                                                      authorising the grant of further aid to CreÂdit Lyonnais and
                                                                      re-evaluating the amount of aid resulting from the hive-off
The Commission failed to make any findings as to                      mechanism previously authorised on 26 July 1995.
whether or not discrimination existed in the relevant
period, although the facts set out in the complaint
provided support for such a finding. The Commission
                                                                      The applicant maintains that that aid is illegal under
further failed to draw all the inferences as regards the
                                                                      Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty, since it was not notified in
effects which such discrimination may have had in the
                                                                      advance to the Commission. In the absence of exceptional,
relationship between purchasers and producers, as
                                                                      unforeseeable circumstances beyond the control of CreÂdit
contemplated in Article 4(b) of the ECSC Treaty, even
                                                                      Lyonnais which would have placed it in a significantly
before it took action. The applicant submits, in the
                                                                      worse situation, it was not open to the Commission,
alternative, that the Commission unlawfully failed to act
                                                                      without infringing the provisions of Article 92(3) and
pursuant to Article 63(1) of the ECSC Treaty. As a result,
                                                                      breaching its obligation to provide a statement of reasons,
the applicants are unable to seek any relief in the United
                                                                      to authorise in the present case grants of additional aid
Kingdom courts for the massive losses sustained during
                                                                      over and above those previously authorised.
the period 1984 to 1 April 1990. The contested decision
does not ensure effective protection as required by
Article 4(b) of the ECSC Treaty.
                                                                      The applicant considers that the contested decision does
                                                                      not specify the amount of the aid with sufficient precision.
(1) Case C-18/94 of 2 May 1996, Hopkins and Others v.                 Moreover, the estimate of that amount is vitiated by an
    National Power and Power Gen, ECR I-2281.                         error of law and by a manifest error of assessment, which
                                                                      led the Commission to underestimate by nearly 50 billion
                                                                      francs the amount of aid actually granted to CreÂdit
                                                                      Lyonnais. Those errors prevented the Commission from
                                                                      correctly assessing the compatibility of the aid with the
                                                                      common market, as required by Article 92(3)(c) of the EC
                                                                      Treaty and the Guidelines for its application.
Action brought on 21 September 1998 by SocieÂteÂ
GeÂneÂrale against the Commission of the European
                          Communities
                                                                      The applicant further considers that the 1998 decision is
                       (Case T-149/98)                                illegal, inasmuch as it is based on the provisions of
                                                                      Article 2(c) of the decision of 26 July 1995, which are
                         (98/C 358/37)
                                                                      themselves unlawful under Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty;
                                                                      this meant that the Commission was constrained to limit
                (Language of the case: French)                        the inferences drawn by it from the deviation established
                                                                      in the evaluation of the cost of hive-off authorised in 1995
                                                                      to a mere increase in the quid pro quos to be provided by
An action against the Commission of the European                      CreÂdit Lyonnais, without examining any alternative
Communities was brought before the Court of First                     solutions.
Instance of the European Communities on 21 September
1998 by SocieÂteÂ GeÂneÂrale, established in Paris, represented
by Dominique Voillemot, of the Paris Bar, with an address             Contrary to the requirements imposed by the provisions of
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Katia                    Article 92(3) of the EC Treaty and by the Guidelines for
Manhaeve, 56Ð58 rue Charles Martel.                                   its application, the decision does not examine the
                                                                      alternative solutions which the French authorities could
                                                                      have adopted instead of granting additional aid: it rejects
The applicant claims that the Court should:                           from the outset, and without providing any reasons, the
                                                                      solution of a refusal to authorise the aid, even though that
                                                                      would have been more satisfactory from the point of view
Ð annul, pursuant to Article 173 of the Treaty, the
                                                                      of its effects on competition.
     Commission's decision of 20 May 1998, published in
     the Official Journal of the European Communities of
     8 August 1998, authorising the grant by the French
     authorities of additional aid to CreÂdit Lyonnais;               In the alternative, the applicant claims that the contested
                                                                      decision should be annulled inasmuch as it provides for
                                                                      quid pro quos which are inadequate to remedy the serious
Ð order repayment of the said aid;                                    distortions of competition resulting from the authorisation
                                                                      of the aid to CreÂdit Lyonnais as a whole, as required by
                                                                      Article 92(3)(c) of the EC Treaty.
Ð order the Commission to pay all of the costs and
     expenses incurred in the course of the present
     proceedings.


title: Case T-7/13: Order of the General Court of 3 April 2014 — ADEAS v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market on certain conditions — Association — Not individually affected — Inadmissibility)

text:
               16.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/30

         Order of the General Court of 3 April 2014 — ADEAS v Commission
   (Case T-7/13) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - State aid - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market on certain conditions - Association - Not individually affected - Inadmissibility))
   2014/C 184/52
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Association pour la défense de l’épargne et de l’actionnariat des salariés de France Télécom-Orange (ADEAS) (Paris, France) (represented by: A.-L. Lefort des Ylouses and A.-S. Gay, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, D. Grespan and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2012/540/EU of 20 December 2011 concerning State aid No C 25/2008 (ex NN 23/2008) — Reform of the method of financing the pensions of public-service employees working for France Télécom implemented by the French Republic in favour of France Télécom (OJ 2012 L 279, p. 1).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene of the French Republic.

               3.

               The Association pour la défense de l’épargne et de l’actionnariat des salariés de France Télécom-Orange (ADEAS) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

               4.

               The French Republic shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 79, 16.3.2013.


C 79/20               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    18.3.2000
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               from motor vehicles (1), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed
                                                                          to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
— Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
    within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and            — Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
    administrative provisions necessary to comply with Com-
    mission Directive 98/90/EC of 30 November 1998 adapt-
    ing to technical progress Council Directive 70/387/EEC            Pleas in law and main arguments
    relating to the doors of motor vehicles and their trailers (1),
    the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
    under that directive;                                             Under Article 189 of the EC Treaty (now Article 249 EC) of
                                                                      the EC Treaty, according to which a directive is to be binding,
                                                                      as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member State to
— Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                      which it is addressed, Member States are required to observe
                                                                      the time-limits laid down in directives for their transposition.
                                                                      That time-limit expired on 31 December 1998 without the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                       Kingdom of Belgium having brought into force the necessary
                                                                      provisions in order to comply with the directive referred to in
                                                                      the Commission’s application.
Under Article 189 of the EC Treaty (now Article 249 EC) of
the EC Treaty, according to which a directive is to be binding,
as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member State to            (1) OJ 1998 L 286, p. 34.
which it is addressed, Member States are required to observe
the time-limits laid down in directives for their transposition.
That time-limit expired on 31 December 1998 without the
Kingdom of Belgium having brought into force the necessary
provisions in order to comply with the directive referred to in
the Commission’s application.
(1) OJ 1998 L 337, p. 29.                                                    Removal from the register of Case C-204/99 (1)
                                                                                (2000/C 79/40)
                                                                      By order of 18 November 1999 the President of the Court of
                                                                      Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                      from the register of Case-204/99: Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg.
Action brought on 8 February 2000 by the Commission of
the European Communities against Kingdom of Belgium                   (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
                         (Case C-34/00)
                         (2000/C 79/39)
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                      Removal from the register of Case C-317/98 (1)
on 8 February 2000 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Michel Nolin, of its Legal Service,                                  (2000/C 79/41)
acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,
Kirchberg.                                                            By order of 25 November 1999 the President of the Court of
                                                                      Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                      from the register of Case C-317/98 (reference for a preliminary
The applicant claims that the Court should:                           ruling from Pretore di Udine, sezione distaccata di Cividale del
                                                                      Friuli): Procuratore della Repubblica v Claudio Chiarotti and
— Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force              Antonino Chillemi.
    within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
    administrative provisions necessary to comply with Com-
    mission Directive 98/77/EC of 2 October 1998 adapting             (1) OJ C 327 of 24.10.1998.
    to technical progress Council Directive 70/220/EEC on the
    approximation of the laws of the Member States relating
    to measures to be taken against air pollution by emissions


title: Case C-221/00: Action brought on 31 May 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

text:
22.7.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 211/15
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrätt-                   consumption, and by making the authorisation of health-
en, by order of that Court of 3 May 2000 in the case of                      related information subject to a prior approval procedure
         Arbetsmarknadsstyrelsen v Petra Rydergård                           (Paragraph 9(3) LMG), the Republic of Austria has
                                                                             infringed its obligations under Articles 2(1)(b) and 15(1)
                          (Case C-215/00)                                    and (2) of Directive 79/112 (1) and under Article 28 EC
                                                                             (formerly Article 30 of the EC Treaty);
                         (2000/C 211/25)                                 2. order the defendant to pay the costs.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   Pleas in law and main arguments
European Communities by order of the Regeringsrätten
(Supreme Administrative Court) of 3 May 2000, which was                  — As to the prohibition of health-related
received at the Court Registry on 31 May 2000, for a                         information              on       foodstuffs          (Para-
preliminary ruling in the case of Arbetsmarknadsstyrelsen v                  graph 9(1) LMG)
Petra Rydergård on the following questions:                                  The rules laid down in Paragraph 9(1)(a) to (c) of the LMG
                                                                             do not, in terms of their interpretation and application,
1. Can a person who is in the same situation as Petra
                                                                             permit foodstuffs intended for general consumption to
     Rydergård be regarded as having been available to the
                                                                             provide any health-related information (for example, indi-
     employment services, within the meaning of Article 69(1)
                                                                             cations of physiological or pharmacological effects,
     of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1), for the days
                                                                             especially those which preserve youthfulness, retard the
     in a period of unemployment on which she has been
                                                                             ageing process, aid slimming or preserve health). Such
     prevented from pursuing gainful employment because she
                                                                             rules limit the scope of application of Article 2(1)(b) of
     has been caring for a sick child and does the assessment
                                                                             Directive 79/112/EEC. They may only be applied if they
     depend on the content of the national legislation?
                                                                             are justified on one of the grounds specified in Article 15(2)
                                                                             (protection of public health, consumer protection, preven-
2. Does Article 69(1) require that a person seeking work
                                                                             tion of unfair competition). A Member State is not entitled,
     must have been available to the employment services
                                                                             however, to exercise its right so as to cement existing
     for an uninterrupted period of four weeks immediately
                                                                             consumer habits with a view to preserving an advantage
     preceding his departure to another Member State?
                                                                             acquired by a domestic industry engaged in meeting the
                                                                             consumer demand, when other measures are available to
(1) of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to         protect consumers against the risk of being misled. In
    employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of             the Commission’s view, a rule generally prohibiting the
    their families moving within the Community (OJ English Special           provision of health-related information on foodstuffs is
    Edition 1971 (11), p. 416).                                              not necessary, provided that such information is not liable
                                                                             to mislead, and is therefore not justified under Article 15(2)
                                                                             of Directive 79/112.
                                                                         — As to the procedure requiring the grant
                                                                             of prior approval for the provision of
                                                                             health-related information on food-
                                                                             stuffs (Paragraph 9(3) LMG)
Action brought on 31 May 2000 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Republic of                          The requirement laid down by Paragraph 9(3) LMG, where-
                              Austria                                        by approval must be obtained even for the provision of
                                                                             truthful and non-misleading information — as insisted
                          (Case C-221/00)                                    upon by the Austrian Government — constitutes a
                                                                             measure having equivalent effect within the meaning of
                                                                             Article 28 EC (formerly Article 30 of the EC Treaty). The
                         (2000/C 211/26)
                                                                             rules in issue have the effect of preventing products bearing
                                                                             health-related information which are legally manufactured
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before                 and/or sold in another Member State from being placed
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 31 May                   directly on the market in Austria. Since the Commission
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,                          considers that the general prohibition precluding the
represented by Josef Christian Schieferer, of its Legal Service,             provision of health-related information on foodstuffs is
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of                   not justified on grounds of consumer protection, it follows
Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of the Legal Service of the European               that the same conclusion likewise applies with regard
Commission, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.                                  to the prior approval procedure connected with that
                                                                             prohibition. Moreover, consumer protection can be
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  ensured by measures having a less restrictive effect on the
                                                                             free movement of goods, for example by the carrying out
1. declare that, by interpreting and applying Paragraph 9(1)                 of appropriate controls on the market.
     of the Lebensmittelgesetz (the Austrian Law on foodstuffs,
     hereinafter ‘the LMG’) on the basis that it prohibits,              (1) OJ 1979 L 33, p. 1.
     generally and absolutely, the provision of any health-
     related information on foodstuffs intended for general


title: Removal from the register of C-407/95

text:
27 . 9 . 97                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 295/25
               and if the latter, what amount or degree                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
               of contribution amounts to a 'significant                   Genova by order of 29 July 1997 in the case of Industrie
               contribution' for these purposes; or                        Aeronautiche e Meccaniche Rinaldo Piaggio v.
                                                                           ( 1 ) International Factors Italia SpA — Uhi 1ALIA;
       ( ii ) only where the discharge of nitrogen compounds               (2 ) Dornier Luftfahrt GmbH (Wessling — Germany); and
               from agricultural sources itself accounts for a                                 (3 ) Ministero della Difesa
               concentration of nitrates in those waters in excess                                   ( Case C-295/97)
               of 50 mg/1 ( i.e. leaving out of account any
               contribution from other sources); or                                                      97/C 295/44 )
       ( iii ) on some other basis and, if so, what basis ?                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities by order of 29 July 1997 from the
2. If Question 1 is answered otherwise than in sense ( ii )                Tribunale di Genova ( District Court, Genoa), Sixth Civil
       above, is the Nitrates Directive invalid (to the extent             Chamber, which was received at the Court Registry on
       of its application to surface freshwaters ) on the                  11 August 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
       grounds that it infringes:                                          Industrie Aeronautiche e Meccaniche Rinaldo Piaggio v.
                                                                           ( 1 ) International Factors Italia SpA — IFITALIA;
                                                                           (2 ) Dornier Luftfahrt GmbH (Wessling — Germany); and
       (i)     the principle that the polluter should pay; and/or          ( 3 ) Ministero della Difesa on the following questions:
       ( ii ) the principle of proportionality; and/or
                                                                           1 . Can a national court request the Court of Justice of
                                                                                the European Communities to rule directly on whether
       (iii ) the fundamental property rights of those owning                    a legislative provision of a Member State is compatible
               and/or farming land draining into surface
                                                                                with the provisions of Article 92 of the Treaty ( State
               freshwaters required to be identified under                       aid)?
               Article 3 ( 1 ), being areas of land which are then
               designated by Member States as vulnerable zones
               under Article 3 ( 2 )?                                      2 . If the answer is in the affirmative: can it be argued
                                                                                that, by Law No 26 of 3 April 1979 establishing
(•) OJ L 375 , 31 . 12 . 1991 , p. 1 .                                           a special administration procedure for large
( 2 ) Council Directive of 16 June 1975 concerning the quality                   undertakings in a state of crisis, and in particular by
      required of surface water intended for the abstraction of                  the provisions of that Law set out in the grounds of
      drinking water in the Member States ( OJ L 194, 25 . 7. 1995,              the present order, the Italian State has granted to such
      p. 26 ).                                                                   undertakings as are covered by that Law (that is to
                                                                                say, large undertakings ) aid contrary to Article 92 of
                                                                                the Treaty ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
Munster by order of that court of 28 July 1997 in the case
of Eurowings Luftverkehrs AG v. Finanzamt Dortmund                                   Removal from the register of C-407/95 (*)
                                     Unna
                                                                                97/C 295/45 )
                              ( Case C-294/97
                                ( 97/C 295/43 )                             By order of 13 May 1997 the President of the Court of
                                                                           Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                            removal from the register of Case C-407/95: Kingdom of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      Belgium v. Commission of the European Communities,
European Communities by an order of the Finanzgericht                       supported by French Republic and United Kingdom of
 (Finance Court), Munster (Ninth Chamber), of 28 July                       Great Britain and Northern Ireland .
 1997, which was received at the Court Registry on
 11 August 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of                    O OJ C 46, 17. 2 . 1996 .
Eurowings Luftverkehrs AG v. Finanzamt (Tax Office),
Dortmund-Unna, on the following question:
 Are the 'add-back' provisions in the second sentence of
 paragraph 8 ( 7) and the second sentence of paragraph 12
 (2 ) (2 ) of the Gewerbesteuergesetz ( Business Tax Law)                              Removal from the register of C-58/96 (')
 compatible with the principle of freedom to provide
 services under Article 59 of the Treaty on European Union                                              ( 97/C 295/46 )
 of 7 February 1992 ?
                                                                            By order of 13 May 1997 the President of the Court of
                                                                            Justice of the European Communities has ordered the


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 17 November 1998 in Case C-70/97 P: Kruidvat BVBA v. Commission of the European Communities, supported by Parfums Givenchy SA, Comité de Liaison des Syndicates Européens de l'Industrie de la Parfumerie et des Cosmétiques (Colipa), and Fédération Européenne des Parfumeurs Détaillants (FEPD) (Appeal - Selective distribution system - Luxury cosmetic products - Undertaking directly and individually concerned) (1999/C 1/02)

text:
4.1.1999             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 1/1
                                                                 I
                                                           (Information)
                                             COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                       COURT OF JUSTICE
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  N. Fennelly, Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy
                                                                     Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 November 1998, in
                      (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                     which it has ruled:
                   of 12 November 1998
in Case C-134/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from            The Court has no jurisdiction to answer the questions
Skatterättsnämnden): in the proceedings for a preliminary            referred by Skatterättsnämnden by its order for reference
     decision brought before it by Victoria Film A/S (1)             of 20 February 1997.
(Act of accession of the Kingdom of Sweden Ð Sixth VAT
Directive Ð Transitional provisions Ð Exemptions Ð                   (1) OJ C 166, 31.5.1997.
Services provided by authors, artists and performers Ð
             Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)
                       (1999/C 1/01)
              (Language of the case: Swedish)                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 17 November 1998
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be        in Case C-70/97 P: Kruidvat BVBA v. Commission of the
         published in the European Court Reports)                    European Communities, supported by Parfums Givenchy
                                                                     SA, ComiteÂ de Liaison des Syndicates EuropeÂens de
                                                                     l'Industrie de la Parfumerie et des CosmeÂtiques (Colipa),
In Case C-134/97: reference to the Court under Article 177           and FeÂdeÂration EuropeÂenne des Parfumeurs DeÂtaillants
of the EC Treaty from Skatterättsnämnden for a                                                 (FEPD) (1)
preliminary ruling in the proceedings for a preliminary              (Appeal Ð Selective distribution system Ð Luxury
decision brought before it by Victoria Film A/S Ð on the             cosmetic products Ð Undertaking directly and
interpretation of the Act concerning the conditions of                                  individually concerned)
accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of
Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments                                        (1999/C 1/02)
to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded
(OJ C 241, 29.8.1998, p. 21), in conjunction with
Article 28(3)(b) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of                            (Language of the case: Dutch)
17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the
Member States relating to turnover taxes Ð Common
system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
(OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1) and point 2 of Annex F                            published in the European Court Reports)
thereto Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: G.
Hirsch (Rapporteur), President of the Second Chamber,
acting as President of the Sixth Chamber, G. F. Mancini,             In Case C-70/97 P: Kruidvat BVBA, a company
H. Ragnemalm, R. Schintgen and K. M. Ioannou, Judges;                incorporated under Belgian law, established in Antwerp,
 ---pagebreak--- C 1/2                  EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    4.1.1999
Belgium, represented by O. W. Brouwer, of the                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Amsterdam Bar, and F. P. Louis and P. Wytinck, both of
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                                        of 17 November 1998
Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 11 Rue
Goethe Ð appeal against the judgment of the Court of                in Case C-228/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
First Instance of the European Communities (Second                  the Giudice Conciliatore, Milan): Aprile Srl, in liquidation
Chamber, Extended Composition) of 12 December 1996                         v. Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato (1)
in Case T-87/92 Kruidvat v. Commission [1996] ECR
II-1931, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other         (Charges having equivalent effect Ð Recovery of sums
parties to the proceedings being: Commission of the                 paid but not due Ð Procedural time-limits under national
European Communities (Agent: B. J. Drijber), supported                                           law)
by Parfums Givenchy SA, a company incorporated under
French law, established in Levallois-Perret, France,                                        (1999/C 1/03)
represented by F. Bizet, of the Paris Bar, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. May, 31
Grand-Rue, ComiteÂ de Liaison des Syndicates EuropeÂens
de l'Industrie de la Parfumerie et des CosmeÂtiques
(Colipa), an international non-profit-making association                            (Language of the case: Italian)
governed by Belgian law, having its headquarters in
Brussels, represented by F. Herbert, of the Brussels Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of C. Zeyen, 56-58 Rue Charles Martel, and
FeÂdeÂration EuropeÂenne des Parfumeurs DeÂtaillants
(FEPD), an association of national federations or unions             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
governed by French law, having its headquarters in Paris,                     published in the European Court Reports)
represented by R. Verniau, of the Lyons Bar Ð the Court,
composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.-P.
Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann (Rapporteur) (Presidents of
Chambers), G. F. Mancini, C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray,
D. A. O. Edward, H. Ragnemalm, L. Sevón and M.                      In Case C-228/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
Wathelet, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate-General; R.                 of the EC Treaty from the Giudice Conciliatore
Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 November               (Judge-Conciliator), Milan (Italy) for a preliminary ruling
1998, in which it:                                                  in the proceedings pending before that court between
                                                                    Aprile Srl, in liquidation and Amministrazione delle
                                                                    Finanze dello Stato Ð on the interpretation of Community
                                                                    law concerning the recovery of sums paid but not due Ð
                                                                    the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias,
                                                                    President, P. J. G. Kapteyn and J.-P. Puissochet
1. Dismisses the appeal;                                            (Rapporteur), (Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini,
                                                                    J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, L.
                                                                    Sevón, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen and K. M. Ioannou,
                                                                    Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-General; L.
                                                                    Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
                                                                    judgment on 17 November 1998, in which it has ruled:
2. Orders Kruidvat BVBA to pay the costs of the
     Commission and of the intervener Parfums Givenchy
     SA, and to bear its own costs;
                                                                    1. Community law does not preclude the application of a
                                                                        national provision which, for all actions for repayment
                                                                        of customs charges, imposes a special time-limit of
                                                                        five, and subsequently three, years, instead of the
                                                                        ordinary limitation period of ten years for actions for
3. Orders the ComiteÂ de Liaison des Syndicats EuropeÂens
                                                                        the recovery of sums paid but not due, provided that
     de l'Industrie de la Parfumerie et des CosmeÂtiques and
                                                                        that time-limit, which is similar to that imposed for
     the FeÂdeÂration EuropeÂenne des Parfumeurs DeÂtaillants
                                                                        certain taxes, applies in the same way to actions based
     to bear their own costs.
                                                                        on Community law for repayment of such charges as
                                                                        to those based on national law.
(1) OJ C 131, 26.4.1997.
                                                                    2. In circumstances such as those of the main
                                                                        proceedings, Community law does not prohibit a
                                                                        Member State from resisting actions for repayment of
                                                                        charges levied in breach of Community law by relying


title: Joined Cases T-426/10 and T-575/10 and Case T-440/12: Order of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías v Commission (Actions for annulment — Competition — Cartels — European prestressing steel market — Price fixing, market sharing and exchange of sensitive commercial information — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Decision amending the initial decision without affecting the fines imposed on the applicant — No legal interest in bringing proceedings — Partial manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               2.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/30

      Order of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías v Commission
      (Joined Cases T-426/10 and T-575/10 and Case T-440/12) (1)

      (Actions for annulment - Competition - Cartels - European prestressing steel market - Price fixing, market sharing and exchange of sensitive commercial information - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Decision amending the initial decision without affecting the fines imposed on the applicant - No legal interest in bringing proceedings - Partial manifest inadmissibility)
      (2015/C 073/40)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías, SA (Gijón, Spain) (represented by: in Cases T-426/10 and T-575/10, F. González Díaz and A. Tresandi Blanco, and, in Case T-440/12, initially F. González Díaz and P. Herrero Prieto, then F. González Díaz and A. Tresandi Blanco, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and V. Bottka, and, in Case T-440/12, C. Urraca Caviedes, Agents, and in Cases T-426/10 and T-440/12, by L. Ortiz Blanco, lawyer)

         Re:

      Applications for annulment and alteration of Commission Decision C (2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38344 — Prestressing steel), amended by Commission Decision C (2010) 6676 final of 30 September 2010 and by Commission Decision C (2011) 2269 final of 4 April 2011, and by the letter COMP/G2/DVE/nvz/79465 from the Commission’s Director-General for Competition of 25 July 2012.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  In Case T-426/10, the form of order seeking annulment in part of Commission Decision C (2010) 6676 final of 30 September 2010 amending Commission Decision C (2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement (Case COMP/38344 — Prestressing steel) is rejected as manifestly inadmissible.

                  2.

                  In Case T-575/10, the action is rejected as manifestly inadmissible.

                  3.

                  The remainder of the pleas in law and forms of order sought is reserved.

                  4.

                  Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías, SA is ordered to pay the costs relating to the pleas in law and forms of order directed against Commission Decision C (2010) 6676 final of 30 September 2010 amending Commission Decision C (2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement (Case COMP/38344 — Prestressing steel) made in Case T-426/10 and the costs in Case T-575/10.

         (1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 30 September 1998 in Case T-13/97: Antoinette Losch v. Court of Justice of the European Communities (Officials - Termination of service as a result of the accession of new Member States - Act adversely affecting an official - Objection of illegality - Legality of Regulation (EC, Euratom, ECSC) No 2688/95 - Equal treatment - Infringement of essential procedural requirements - Prior consultation of the institutions and of the Staff Regulations Committee)

text:
C 358/14              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    21.11.98
President, and R. García-Valdecasas and M. Jaeger,                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the
                                                                                of 30 September 1998
Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 September 1998, in
which it:                                                           in Case T-13/97: Antoinette Losch v. Court of Justice of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
1. Annuls the decisions of the Court of Justice addressed:          (Officials Ð Termination of service as a result of the
                                                                    accession of new Member States Ð Act adversely affecting
    Ð on 28 February 1996 to Christiane Chvatal,                    an official Ð Objection of illegality Ð Legality of
                                                                    Regulation (EC, Euratom, ECSC) No 2688/95 Ð Equal
                                                                    treatment Ð Infringement of essential procedural
    Ð on 24 April 1996 to Jean-Yves Delaval,                        requirements Ð Prior consultation of the institutions and
                                                                                of the Staff Regulations Committee)
    Ð on 28 February 1996 to Jean Demaeght,                                                  (98/C 358/28)
    Ð on 28 February 1996 to Giovanna Dragoni,
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
    Ð on 28 February 1996 to John Hambly,
    Ð on 24 April 1996 to Marc Kemmerling-Laleure,                  In Case T-13/97: Antoinette Losch, an official of the
                                                                    Court of Justice of the European Communities,
                                                                    represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, Thierry Demaseure and,
    Ð on 11 March 1996 to Kirsten Lammar,                           initially, Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an
                                                                    address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
    Ð on 28 February 1996 to TheÂo Lippert,                         Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 rue de Cessange, v. Court of
                                                                    Justice of the European Communities (Agent: Timothy
                                                                    Millett), supported by Council of the European Union
    Ð on 28 February 1996 to Angus Mackay,                          (Agents: Diego Canga Fano and TheÂreÁse Blanchet) and
                                                                    Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents: Marc Fierstra and
    Ð on 28 February 1996 to Kaj éstergaard,                        Johannes Steven van den Oosterkamp) Ð application for
                                                                    annulment of the decision of the Court of Justice of
                                                                    22 July 1996 rejecting the applicants' requests that her
    Ð on 28 February 1996 to Maureen Russell,                       name be entered on the list of persons having manifested
                                                                    their interest in being the subject of a decision terminating
    Ð on 11 March 1996 to Ulrike Sinter,                            their service as a result of the accession of Austria, Finland
                                                                    and Sweden, and for a declaration that Council
                                                                    Regulation (EC, Euratom, ECSC) No 2688/95 of
    Ð on 28 February 1996 to Aristides Vlachos,                     17 November 1995 introducing special measures to
                                                                    terminate the service of officials of the European
    Ð on 28 February 1996 to Hans Gerhard Weller,                   Communities as a result of the accession of Austria,
                                                                    Finland and Sweden (OJ L 280, 23.11.1995, p. 1) is
                                                                    unlawful inasmuch as it applies only to officials of the
    rejecting their requests that their names be entered on         European Parliament Ð the Court of First Instance (Fifth
    the list of persons having manifested their interest in         Chamber), composed of: J. Azizi, President, and R.
    being the subject of a decision terminating their               García-Valdecasas and M. Jaeger, Judges; B. Pastor,
    service, as provided for by Council Regulation (EC,             Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
    Euratom, ECSC) No 2688/95 of 17 November 1995                   judgment on 30 September 1998, in which it:
    introducing special measures to terminate the service
    of officials of the European Communities as a result of
    the accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden;                   1. Annuls the decision of the Court of Justice of 22 July
                                                                         1996 rejecting the request made by Antoinette Losch
                                                                         on 16 July 1996 that her name be entered on the list
2. Orders the Court of Justice to bear its own costs and
                                                                         of persons having manifested their interest in being the
    to pay the costs of the applicants;
                                                                         subject of a decision terminating their service, as
                                                                         provided for by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom,
                                                                         ECSC) No 2688/95 of 17 November 1995 introducing
3. Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the
                                                                         special measures to terminate the service of officials of
    Council of the European Union to bear their own
                                                                         the European Communities as a result of the accession
    costs.
                                                                         of Austria, Finland and Sweden;
(1) OJ C 354, 23.11.1996.
                                                                    2. Orders the Court of Justice to bear its own costs and
                                                                         to pay the costs of the applicants;
 ---pagebreak--- 21.11.98              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 358/15
3. Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     Council of the European Union to bear their own
     costs.                                                                            of 30 September 1998
                                                                   in Case T-164/97: Silvio Busacca and Others v. Court of
( ) OJ C 74, 8.3.1997.
 1                                                                          Auditors of the European Communities (1)
                                                                   (Officials Ð Termination of service as a result of the
                                                                   accession of new Member States Ð Act adversely affecting
                                                                   an official Ð Objection of illegality Ð Legality of
                                                                   Regulation (EC, Euratom, ECSC) No 2688/95 Ð Equal
                                                                   treatment Ð Infringement of essential procedural
                                                                   requirements Ð Prior consultation of the institutions and
                                                                               of the Staff Regulations Committee)
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (98/C 358/30)
                      of 1 October 1998
in Case T-155/97: Natural van Dam AG and Danser
Container Line BV v. Commission of the European                                   (Language of the case: French)
                       Communities (1)
(Inland waterway transport Ð Structural improvements Ð
Conditions for bringing new vessels into service Ð                 In Case T-164/97: Silvio Busacca and Others, officials of
                           Exclusion)                              the Court of Auditors of the European Communities,
                         (98/C 358/29)                             represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of
                                                                   the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                   Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30
                                                                   Rue de Cessange, v. Court of Auditors of the European
                (Language of the case: Dutch)                      Communities (Agents: Jean-Marie Stenier, Jan Inghelram,
                                                                   Paolo Giusta and Christina Friedrich) Ð application for
                                                                   annulment of the decisions of the Court of Auditors of
                                                                   16 September 1996 rejecting the applicants' requests that
In Case T-155/97: Natural van Dam AG, established in               their names be entered on the list of persons having
Basle (Switzerland) and Danser Container Line BV,                  manifested their interest in being the subject of a decision
established in Sliedrecht (Netherlands), represented by            terminating their service as a result of the accession of
Marius J. van Dam, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address           Austria, Finland and Sweden Ð the Court of First
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Fernand               Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J. Azizi, President,
Entringer, 34A rue Philippe II, against Commission of the          and R. García-Valdecasas and M. Jaeger, Judges; B. Pastor,
European Communities (Agents: initially Berend-Jan                 Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
Drijber, and subsequently Laura Pignataro and Maurits              judgment on 30 September 1998, in which it:
Lugard) Ð application for annulment of Commission
Decision SG(97) D/1862 of 7 March 1997 refusing to
grant the applicants, in respect of three vessels which they
planned to build, the exemption applied for under                  1. Annuls the decisions of the Court of Auditors of
Article 8(3)(c) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1101/89                 16 September 1996 addressed to Silvio Busacca, Carlo
of 27 April 1989 on structural improvements in inland                  Degli Abbati, Pamela Rattigan, Gisela Tremont and
waterway transport (OJ L 116, 28.4.1989, p. 25) Ð the                  CeÂcile Vandam, rejecting their requests that their
Court of Justice (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P.                     names be entered on the list of persons having
Lindh, President, K. Lenaerts and J. D. Cooke, Judges; A.              manifested their interest in being the subject of a
Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on             decision terminating their service, as provided for by
1 October 1998, the operative part of which reads as                   Council Regulation (EC, Euratom, ECSC) No 2688/
follows:                                                               95 of 17 November 1995 introducing special measures
                                                                       to terminate the service of officials of the European
                                                                       Communities as a result of the accession of Austria,
                                                                       Finland and Sweden;
1. The application is dismissed.
                                                                   2. Orders the Court of Auditors to bear its own costs
2. The applicants are ordered to pay the costs.                        and to pay the costs of the applicants.
(1) OJ C 212, 12.7.1997.                                           (1) OJ C 212, 12.7.1997.


title: Case T-41/07: Action brought on 16 February 2007 — IPK International — World Tourism Marketing Consultants v Commission

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/47

         Action brought on 16 February 2007 — IPK International — World Tourism Marketing Consultants v Commission
   (Case T-41/07)
   (2007/C 82/99)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: IPK International — World Tourism Marketing Consultants GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: C. Pitschas, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should

               —

               annul the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 4 December 2006 (C (2006) 6452) on the recovery of payments in the amount of EUR 318 000 together with default interest;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant contests the Commission's decision C (2006) 6452 of 4 December 2006 on the recovery of advance payments received by the applicant for the ECODATA project before the cancellation of the decision to award the grant. The decision was made pursuant to Article 256 EC.
   The cancellation of the decision to grant a subsidy for the creation of a databank on ecological tourism in Europe was made by decision of the Commission of 13 May 2005 and was challenged by the applicant before the Court of First Instance (see Case T-297/05).
   The applicant argues in support of its claim that the contested decision is unlawful. It derives from an unlawful cancellation decision, the unlawfulness of which necessarily extends to the contested decision. Furthermore, the contested decision is a unilateral measure, although the legal claim arising from that decision is contractual in nature and can therefore be pursued only by means of a civil claim before the competent national courts of a Member State.


title: Case F-78/09: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 22 June 2010 — Marcuccio v Commission (Staff cases — Officials — Action for damages — Reimbursement of costs — Availability of a parallel remedy — Manifestly inadmissible)

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/58

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 22 June 2010 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case F-78/09) (1)

   (Staff cases - Officials - Action for damages - Reimbursement of costs - Availability of a parallel remedy - Manifestly inadmissible)
   2010/C 234/106
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, Agents)

      Re:

   First, application for annulment of the Commission’s decision rejecting the applicant’s application for reimbursement of the costs he incurred in Case T-18/04 and which the defendant was ordered to pay by judgment of 10 June 2008. Secondly, an application for damages.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Mr Marcuccio’s action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               The parties are to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 312, 19.12.2009, p. 43


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) 24 January 2002 in Case C-500/99 P: Conserve Italia Soc. Coop. arl v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Agriculture — EAGGF — Discontinuance of financial aid — Regulation (EEC) No 355/77 — Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 — Principle of proportionality)

text:
C 84/16                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           6.4.2002
the order of the Court of First Instance of the European                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Communities (Second Chamber) of 29 September 1999 in
Joined Cases T-148/98 and T-162/98 Evans and Others v
Commission [1999] ECR II-2837, seeking to have that order
set aside, the other parties to the proceedings being: Com-                                          (Sixth Chamber)
mission of the European Communities (agents: M. Erhart
and B. Doherty) and South Wales Small Mines Association,
established in Fochriw, Near Bargoed (United Kingdom),                                               24 January 2002
(agents: T. Sharpe, QC, and M. Brealey, barrister, instructed by
S. Llewellyn Jones, solicitor) the Court (Sixth Chamber),
composed of: F. Macken, President of the Chamber, C. Gul-
mann, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and                       in Case C-500/99 P: Conserve Italia Soc. Coop. arl v
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges, Advocate General: D. Ruiz-                           Commission of the European Communities (1)
Jarabo Colomer, Registrar: R. Grass, has given a judgment on
10 January 2002, in which it:
                                                                            (Appeal — Agriculture — EAGGF — Discontinuance of
                                                                            financial aid — Regulation (EEC) No 355/77 — Regulation
                                                                                (EEC) No 4253/88 — Principle of proportionality)
1.   Sets aside the order of the Court of First Instance of 29 Septem-
     ber 1999 in Joined Cases T-148/98 and T-162/98 Evans
     and Others v Commission in so far as:
                                                                                (2002/C 84/25)
     —     it dismissed the action in Case T-148/98 as inadmissible;
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
     —     it joined Cases T-148/98 and T-168/98;
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
     —     it stated that it was unnecessary to rule on the application
           for legal aid made in Case T-148/98 or on the application
           for leave to intervene made by PowerGen UK plc, National
           Power plc and British Coal Corporation in the same case;
                                                                            In Case C-500/99 P: Conserve Italia Soc. Coop. arl, formerly
                                                                            Massalombarda Colombani SpA, established in San Lazzaro di
     —     it ordered the applicants in Case T-148/98 to bear their         Savena (Italy), (agents: M. Averani, A. Pisaneschi, P. de Caterini
           own costs and, jointly and severally, to pay those incurred      and S. Zunarelli): Appeal against the judgment of the Court of
           by the Commission of the European Communities in Case            First Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber)
           T-162/98;                                                        of 12 October 1999 in Case T-216/96 Conserve Italia v
                                                                            Commission [1999] ECR II-3139, seeking to have that judg-
                                                                            ment set aside the other party to the proceedings being:
     —     it ordered the applicant in Case T-162/98, jointly and           Commission of the European Communities (agent: F. Ruggeri
           severally with the applicants in Case T-148/98, to pay           Laderchi, assisted by M. Moretto), the Court (Sixth Chamber),
           the costs incurred by the Commission of the European             composed of: F. Macken (Rapporteur), President of the
           Communities in Case T-148/98;                                    Chamber, C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen, V. Skouris and J.N. Cunha
                                                                            Rodrigues, Judges, Advocate General: S. Alber, Registrar:
                                                                            L. Hewlett, Administrator, has given a judgment on 24 January
                                                                            2002, in which it:
2.   Refers Case T-148/98 back to the Court of First Instance to
     enable it to give judgment on the substance of the case;
                                                                            1.    Dismisses the appeal;
3.   Reserves the costs in Case T-148/98.
                                                                            2.    Orders Conserve Italia Soc. Coop. arl to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.