title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 6 June 1996 in Case T-391/94: Jean Baiwir v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Act adversely affecting an official - Time-limits under the Staff Regulations - Inadmissibility - Action for damages).

text:
 No C 247/ 12          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 24 . 8 . 96
  1 . the application is rejected;                                    Hemau , represented by Hartwig Schneider, Rechtsanwalt, 8
                                                                      Pacellistraße, Munich, against Commission of the European
 2 . each of the parties will bear its own costs.                     Communities ( Agents : Ulrich Wölker and Claudia Schmidt )
                                                                      — application for the annulment of Commission Regulation
 (') OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994 .                                    ( EEC ) No 525/93 of 8 March 1993 establishing the value of
                                                                      the final regional reference amounts for producers of soya
                                                                      beans, rape seed, colza seed and sunflower seed for the
                                                                       1992/93 marketing year ( OJ No L 56 , 1993 , p. 18 ) — the
                                                                      Court of First Instance of the European Communities
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             ( Second Chamber, Extended Composition ), composed of
                         of 6 June 1996                               H. Kirschner, President, and B. Vesterdorf, C. W. Bellamy,
 in Case T-391/94 : Jean Baiwir v. Commission of the                  A. Kalogeropoulos and A. Potocki , Judges; H. Jung,
                   European Communities ( 1 )                         Registrar, gave a judgment on 10 July 1996 , in which it :
 (Officials — Act adversely affecting an official —                   I. dismisses the application as inadmissible;
  Time-limits under the Staff Regulations — Inadmissibility
                    — Action for damages).                            2 . orders the applicants jointly and severally to pay the
                           ( 96/C 247/24 )                                 costs .
                (Language of the case: French)                        (') OJ No C 177, 29 . 6 . 1993 .
 In Case T-391 /94 : Jean Baiwir, an official of the
 Commission of the European Communities , residing at
 Court-Saint-Etienne ( Belgium ), represented by Georges
 Vandersanden, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
 service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 Sari , 1 Rue Glesener v. Commission of the European                                         of 11 July 1996
 Communities ( Agents : first, Joseph Griesmar, then Julian
 Currall, assisted by Denis Waelbroeck ) — application for           in Joined Cases T-528/93 , T-542/93 , T-543/93' and
 annulment of the memorandum of 12 February 1993 from                T-546/93 : Métropole Télévision SA and Others v.
the Head of Unit IX . A. 6 of the Commission, purporting to                  Commission of the European Communities ( 1 )
classify the applicant as 'cross-category' for the purposes of        (Competition — Decisions of associations of undertakings
the 1 993 promotions within the career bracket, and also for         — Agreements between undertakings — Exemption
an order that the applicant be reinstated in his career as an                                      decision)
official in Grade B 4/2 with retroactive effect from 1 January                                 ( 96/C 247/26 )
 1993 , and compensation for the non-material damage
suffered — the Court of First Instance ( Fourth Chamber ),
composed of K. Lenaerts, President, P. Lindh and J. D.                    (Languages of the case: Spanish, French and Italian)
Cooke, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the
Registrar, gave a judgment on 6 June 1996 , the operative            In Joined Cases T-528/93 , T-542/93 , T-543/93 and
part of which is as follows :                                        T-546/93 : Métropole Television SA, established in Paris,
                                                                     represented by Pierre Deprez, Philippe Dian and , at the
 1 . the application is dismissed as inadmissible;                   hearing, by Didier Théophile, all of the Paris Bar, with an
                                                                     address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
2 . each of the parties will bear its own costs.                     Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue , Reti Televisive Italiana SpA,
                                                                     established in Rome, represented by Carlo Mezzanotte and
(') OJ No C 392 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .
                                                                     Giovanni Motzo, of the Rome Bar, and Aurelio Pappalardo,
                                                                     of the Trapani Bar, and, at the hearing, by Massimo Merola ,
                                                                     of the Trapani Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                     Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain Lorang, 51 Rue
                                                                     Albert Ier , supported by Sociedade Independente de
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             Comunicação SA ( SIC ), established at Linda-a-Velha
                        of 10 July 1996                              ( Portugal ), represented by Carlos Botelho Moniz, of the
       in Case T-482/93 : Martin Weber and Others v.                 Lisbon Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
        Commission of the European Communities ( 1 )                 the Chambers of Carole Kerschen , 31 Grand-Rue,
                                                                     Gestevisión Telecinco SA, established in Madrid ,
(Common agriculturalpolicy — Support system for oilseeds             represented by Santiago Munoz Machado, of the Madrid
— Regulations (EEC) Nos 3766/91 and 525/93 — Actions                 Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
        for annulment of measures — Inadmissibility)                 Chambers of Carlos Amo Quinones, 2 Rue Gabriel
                          ( 96/ C 247/25 )                           Lippmann , and Antena 3 de Television , established in
                                                                     Madrid , represented by Fernando Pombo Garcia , Ricardo
               (Language of the case: German)                        Garcia Vicente , Emiliano Garayar Gutierrez and Maria
                                                                     Luisa Tierno Centella , of the Madrid Bar, with an address
In Case T-482/93 : Martin Weber and Maria Weber, residing            for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Claude
at Hemau ( Germany ), Martin Weber GdbR , established at             Wassenich , 6 Rue Dicks, against Commission of the


title: Action brought on 7 April 1995 by Peter Esmond Stott against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-99/95)

text:
28 . 10 . 95           KN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 286/ 15
European Communities ( Agents : Francisco Gonzalez Diaz               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
and Géraud de Bergues ) — application for the annulment of
Commission Decision 94/893/EC of 21 June 1994 declaring               The applicant, who is employed by the United Kingdom
a concentration to be compatible with the common market               Atomic Energy Authority ( UKAEA ) and the JET Joint
and the functioning of the EEA Agreement ( IV/M.430 —                 Undertaking, as a senior member of the JET project team, as
Procter & Gamble/VP Schickedanz ( II ), OJ No L 354, p. 32 )          well as one of the applicants in Case T- 177/94 Altmann and
— the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber, Extended               Others, challenges the Commission's decision refusing him
Composition ), composed of J. L. Cruz Vilaça , President,             the possibility of changing his employment from the
and D. P. M. Barrington , A. Saggio , H. Kirschner and A.             UKAEA to the Commission itself, in accordance with
Kalogeropoulos , Judges ; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an             Article 8 of the JET Statutes .
order on 16 August 1995 , in which it :
                                                                      The current application derives from the requirement,
 1 . rejects the request by Procter & Gamble GmbH for a               imposed by that article, that where staff are 'made available
     derogation from the rules governing languages in so far          by the Members of the JET Joint Undertaking other than the
     as it concerns the written procedure;                            host organization' and 'recruited by the Commission for
                                                                      temporary posts' the member in question ' shall undertake to
2 . grants the request of Procter & Gamble GmbH to use                re-employ the staff whom it placed at the disposal of the
     English in the oral procedure;                                   Project (. . .) as soon as the work of such staff on the Project
                                                                      has been completed'. This requirement having been
3.   reserves its decision as to costs .                              systematically interpreted by the Commission to mean that
                                                                      all temporary employees of the Commission working at JET
(') O J No C 316 , 12 . 11 . 1994 .                                   are required to obtain a 'return ticket' from a member of JET
                                                                      other than UKAEA, the applicant has now obtained a
                                                                      ' return ticket ' from the Swedish National Science Research
                                                                      Council , a member of JET, via an offer of employment from
                                                                      the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology .
Action brought on 7 April 1995 by Peter Esmond Stott                  It is fundamental to the applicant's case that since 1987 the
   against the Commission of the European Communities                 Commission, and the JET management generally, have
                         ( Case T-99/95 )                             failed to take any proper account of their obligations
                           ( 95/C 286/36 )                            towards the UKAF1A employees of JET and have in fact
                                                                      acted deliberately against the interests of those persons, so
                                                                      that this application raises issues closely related to those
                (Language of the case: English)                       raised in Case T-177/94 Altmann and Others .
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 7 April 1995 by
Peter Esmond Stott, represented by Kenneth Parker and
Rhodri Thompson , with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Cabinet Elvinger, Hoss and Prussen, 15              Action brought on 8 August 1995 by LPN — Liga para a
Cote d'Eich .                                                         Protecção da Natureza, and by GEOTA — Grupo de
                                                                      Estudos do Ordenamento do Territorio e do Ambiente,
                                                                         against the Commission of the European Communities
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                                ( Case T-155/95 )
— annul the Commission 's decision of 28 December 1994                                          ( 95/C 286/37 )
     addressed to the applicant,
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
— order the Commission to direct the Director of the JET
     Joint Undertaking to take steps necessary to enable the
     applicant to become a temporary employee of the                  An action against the Commission of the European
     Commission in accordance with Article 8 ( 5 ) of the              Communities was brought before the Court of First
     Statutes of the JET Joint Undertaking without requiring          Instance of the European Communities on 8 August 1995 by
     the applicant first to vacate his current post at JET or to       LPN — Liga para a Protecção de Natureza, whose registered
     apply for any other post at JET,                                 office is at 187 Estrada do Calhariz de Benfica , Lisbon,
                                                                      represented by Agostinho Pereira de Miranda, Rui
— order the Commission to pay compensation to the                     Amendoeira and Paula Gomes Freire, of the Lisbon Bar, and
     applicant in relation to the difference in his terms and         whose chambers are at 27 Ave. Antonio de Aguiar, 2nd Floor
     conditions of employment resulting from the failure of            Rt. , Lisbon, and by GEOTA — Grupo de Estudos do
     the Director of JET to act on the letter addressed to the         Ordenamento do Territorio e do Ambiente, whose
     JET Director from the applicant dated 16 May 1994 ,               registered office is at 17 — c/v Rt., Travessa Moinho de
     and                                                               Vento, Lisbon, represented by Jose Cunhal Sendim, of the
                                                                       Lisbon Bar, and whose chambers are at 10, Ave . Afonso
— order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs .                  Costa , 11 th Floor Rt. , Lisbon.


title: Cases C-80/99, C-81/99 and C-82/99: References for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main by orders of that court of 23 February 1999 in the cases of Ernst-Otto Flemmer, Renate Christoffel and Marike Leitensdorfer v. Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities represented by Bundesanstalt Für Forstwirtschaft und Ernährung

text:
C 121/14              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     1.5.1999
References for a preliminary ruling from the Verwal-                          Removal from the register of Case C-289/98 (1)
tungsgericht Frankfurt am Main by orders of that court of
23 February 1999 in the cases of Ernst-Otto Flemmer,                                           (1999/C 121/27)
Renate Christoffel and Marike Leitensdorfer v. Council of
the European Union and Commission of the European                      By order of 16 December 1998 the president of the Court of
Communities represented by Bundesanstalt Für                           Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                Forstwirtschaft und Ernährung                          from the register of Case C-289/98: Commission of the
                                                                       European Communities v. Hellenic Republic.
            (Cases C-80/99, C-81/99 and C-82/99)
                                                                       (1) OJ C 278, 5.9.1998.
                        (1999/C 121/26)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by orders of the First Chamber of the
Verwaltungsgericht (Administrative Court) Frankfurt am Main
of 23 February 1999, which were received at the Court
Registry on 4 March 1999, for preliminary rulings in the cases                Removal from the register of Case C-197/97 (1)
of 1. Ernst Otto Flemmer, 2. Renate Christoffel 3. And
Marike Leitensdorfer v. Council of the European Union and                                      (1999/C 121/28)
Commission of the European Communities represented by
Bundesanstalt für Forstwirtschaft und Ernährung on the fol-            By order of 27 January 1999 the president of the Court of
lowing questions:                                                      Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                       from the register of Case C-197/97 (reference for a preliminary
a) Is the second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty in          ruling from the Liverpool Industrial Tribunal): Donna Marie
    conjunction with Article 178 of the EC Treaty in conjunc-          Davies v. Girobank plc.
    tion with the provisions of Council Regulation (EEC) No
    2187/93 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the Court of         (1) OJ C 212, 12.7.1997.
    Justice also has jurisdiction in disputes which derive from
    a contract concluded by the competent national authority
    in the name and on behalf of the Council and Commission
    in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 2187/93
    providing for an offer of compensation to certain pro-
    ducers of milk and milk products temporarily prevented
    from carrying on their trade?
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-24/98 (1)
b) If that question is answered in the negative and if there is a
    case falling within the first paragraph of Article 215 of the                              (1999/C 121/29)
    EC Treaty and if the national courts thus have jurisdiction
    under Article 183 of the EC Treaty, the further question           By order of 2 February 1999 the President of the Court of
    arises whether the provisions of national procedural law           Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
    or the general principles of law common to the legal               from the register of Case C-24/98: Commission of the
    systems of the Member States are to be applied to such a           European Communities v. Ireland.
    contract, in so far as Regulation (EEC) No 2187/93 makes
    no provision.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 72, 7.3.1998.
c) If the general principles of law are applicable, the question
    then arises whether and under what conditions the com-
    petent national authority may set aside in whole or in part
    a contract concluded in the name and on behalf of the
    Council and Commission if it subsequently transpires that
    the conditions to be fulfilled under Regulation (EEC) No
    2187/93 for the making of an offer of compensation were                   Removal from the register of Case C-371/96 (1)
    in whole or in part not met, or if the conditions for the
    making of an offer of compensation are met only because                                    (1999/C 121/30)
    the competent national authorities consider that they are
    precluded for reasons of the protection of legitimate              By order of 3 February 1999 the President of the Court of
    expectations from annulling the definitive allocation of a         Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
    special reference quantity which is a precondition for             from the register of Case C-371/96 (reference for a preliminary
    granting compensation.                                             ruling from the Tribunale di Trento): Ministero delle Finanze
                                                                       v. Cotonificio del Trentino SpA.
(1) OJ L 196, 5.8.1993, p. 6.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 40, 8.2.1997.


title: Case C-96/13: Order of the President of the Tenth Chamber of the Court of 10 February 2014 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

text:
               16.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/23

         Order of the President of the Tenth Chamber of the Court of 10 February 2014 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-96/13) (1)

   2014/C 184/36
   Language of the case: Greek
   The President of the Tenth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 4.5.2013.


title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the  Official Journal of the European Union OJ C 165, 15.7.2006 .

text:
               29.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/45

         (2006/C 178/82)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 165, 15.7.2006.

   Past publications

      OJ C 154, 1.7.2006.

      OJ C 143, 17.6.2006.

      OJ C 131, 3.6.2006.

      OJ C 121, 20.5.2006.

      OJ C 108, 6.5.2006.

      OJ C 96, 22.4.2006.
   These texts are available on:

               EUR-Lex:http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex

               CELEX:http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Case C-160/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Bawaria Motors sp. z o.o. v Minister Finansów (Directive 2006/112/EC — VAT — Article 136 — Exemptions — Articles 313 to 315 — Special margin scheme — Supply of second-hand vehicles by a taxable dealer — Vehicles previously supplied exempt from VAT to a taxable dealer by another taxable person which had a right of partial deduction of input tax)

text:
               29.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 295/11

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Bawaria Motors sp. z o.o. v Minister Finansów
   (Case C-160/11) (1)

   (Directive 2006/112/EC - VAT - Article 136 - Exemptions - Articles 313 to 315 - Special margin scheme - Supply of second-hand vehicles by a taxable dealer - Vehicles previously supplied exempt from VAT to a taxable dealer by another taxable person which had a right of partial deduction of input tax)
   2012/C 295/18
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bawaria Motors sp. z o.o.

      Defendant: Minister Finansów

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Interpretation of Articles 136, 313(1), 314 and 315 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Special arrangements for taxable dealers — Sale of second-hand vehicles to a final consumer — Application of the margin scheme where the dealer purchased the vehicle exempt from tax from a person which itself benefited from a partial deduction of input tax

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 313(1) and 314 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with Articles 136 and 315 of that directive must be interpreted as meaning that a taxable dealer is not eligible for the application of the margin scheme where it supplies motor vehicles considered to be second-hand goods, within the meaning of Article 311(1)(1) of that directive, which it has previously acquired exempt from VAT from another taxable person which had only a right of partial deduction of input VAT paid on the purchase price of those vehicles.

      (1)  OJ C 204, 9.7.2011.


title: Case T-669/15: Action brought on 09 October 2015 — Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann e.a. v ECHA

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/80

         Action brought on 09 October 2015 — Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann e.a. v ECHA
   (Case T-669/15)
   (2016/C 048/88)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann GmbH (Berlin, Germany), Ecolab Deutschland GmbH (Monheim, Germany), Schülke & Mayr GmbH (Norderstedt, Germany), Diversey Europe Operations BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, M. Grunchard, lawyers, and P. Sellar, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               declare the appeal admissible and well-founded;

               —

               annul the decision of the European Chemicals Agency concerning the inclusion of the company BASF on the list of active substances and suppliers provided by Article 95 of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 (1); and

               —

               order ECHA to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicants submit that, by allowing a company to be included on the list provided by Article 95 of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 in respect of a given substance, ECHA has failed to apply the law. Its failures in that regard are founded on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that ECHA has misapplied the rules regarding the requirement that the company submit a complete dossier under Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that ECHA has treated companies, which were in the same situation, differently.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that contrary to the requirements of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012, ECHA has failed to ensure that there is a level playing field between those companies that have participated in the review programme of the given substance and those that have been free-riders.

      (1)  Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products (OJ L 167, p. 1).


title: Case F-12/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 26 June 2013 — Di Prospero v Commission (Civil Service — Appointment — Success in a competition following a request to the applicant to sit the competition with a view to complying with a judgment — Appointment in the grade with retroactive effect)

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/45

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 26 June 2013 — Di Prospero v Commission
   (Case F-12/12) (1)

   (Civil Service - Appointment - Success in a competition following a request to the applicant to sit the competition with a view to complying with a judgment - Appointment in the grade with retroactive effect)
   2013/C 252/78
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Rita Di Prospero (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues, A. Blot and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and B. Eggers, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Civil Service — Action for annulment of the Commission’s implied decision rejecting the applicant’s request for classification at grade AD 11 with retroactive effect as at 1 January 2010 and for compensation for damage allegedly suffered.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               The decision of the European Commission of 18 October 2011 refusing to grade Ms Di Prospero in grade AD 11 with retroactive effect from 1 January 2010 is annulled;

               2.

               The remainder of the action is dismissed;

               3.

               The European Commission shall bear its own costs and shall pay those incurred by Ms Di Prospero.

      (1)  OJ C 138, 12.5.2012, p. 32.


title: Case C-378/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sicilia (Italy) lodged on 21 August 2008 — ERG Raffinerie Mediterranee SpA and Others v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico and Others

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sicilia (Italy) lodged on 21 August 2008 — ERG Raffinerie Mediterranee SpA and Others v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico and Others
   (Case C-378/08)
   (2008/C 301/26)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sicilia
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: ERG Raffinerie Mediterranee SpA and Others

      Defendants: Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico and Others
   Questions referred

               1.

               Do the ‘polluter pays’ principle (Article 174(2) (formerly Article 130r(2)) of the Treaty of the European Communities) and the provisions of Directive 2004/35/EC (1) of 21 April 2004, referred to above, preclude national legislation which allows the public authorities to require private undertakings — merely owing to the fact that they currently carry on their activities in an area which has been contaminated for a long time or borders on an area which is historically contaminated — to implement rehabilitation measures, irrespective of whether or not any preliminary investigation has been carried out to identify the party responsible for the pollution?

               2.

               Do the ‘polluterpays’ principle (Article 174(2) (formerly Article 130r(2) of the Treaty of the European Communities) and the provisions of Directive 2004/35/EC of 21 April 2004, referred to above, preclude national legislation which allows the public authorities to impute liability to make good the environmental damage in a particular form to the person who owns the property rights and/or carries on commercial activities on the contaminated site without having to assess in advance whether there is a causal link between the conduct of that person and the occurrence of the contamination, by virtue merely of that person's ‘situation’ (namely, that of being an operator whose activities are carried on inside the site)?

               3.

               Do the provisions of Community law in Article 174(2) (formerly Article 130r(2) of the Treaty of the European Communities) and Directive 2004/35/EC (2) of 21 April 2004 preclude national legislation which, overriding the ‘polluter pays’ principle, allows the public authorities to impute liability to make good the compensation for the environmental damage in a particular form to the person who owns the property rights and/or operates an undertaking on the contaminated site, without having to assess in advance either whether there is a causal link between the conduct of that person and the occurrence of the contamination or the subjective requirement of intent or negligence?

               4.

               Do the Community competition principles laid down in the Treaty establishing the European Community and Directive 2004/18/EC (3), Directive 93/97/EC and Directive 898/665/EC (4) [cited above] preclude national legislation which allows the public authorities to award to private persons (Società Sviluppo SpA and Sviluppo Italia Aree Produttive SpA) the activities of characterisation and of planning and performing cleaning up operations — or more correctly, the carrying out of public works — in areas owned by the State directly, without carrying out in advance the necessary public tendering procedures?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 143, p. 56.

      (2)  OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114.

      (3)  OJ 2004 L 290, p. 1.

      (4)  OJ 2004 L 395, p. 33.


title: Case C-442/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 24 September 2014  — Bayer CropScience SA-NV, Stichting De Bijenstichting v College voor de toelating van gewasbeschermingsmiddelen en biociden

text:
               22.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 24 September 2014 — Bayer CropScience SA-NV, Stichting De Bijenstichting v College voor de toelating van gewasbeschermingsmiddelen en biociden
   (Case C-442/14)
   (2014/C 462/23)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Bayer CropScience SA-NV, Stichting De Bijenstichting

      Defendant: College voor de toelating van gewasbeschermingsmiddelen en biociden

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do the provisions of Article 14 of Directive 91/414/EEC (1), and Article 63, respectively, read in conjunction with Article 59 of the Plant Protection Product Regulation (2) (No 1107/2009 of 21 October 2009) and Article 19 of Directive 98/8/EC (3), respectively, mean that a request for confidentiality, as referred to in the aforementioned Articles 14, 63 and 19 from an applicant referred to in those articles, must be decided on for each individual information source before or when granting the authorisation, or before or when amending the authorisation, respectively, by means of a decision which can be made known to interested third parties?

               2.

               If the previous question is answered in the affirmative: must Article 4(2) of the Environmental Information Directive (4) be interpreted as meaning that in the absence of a decision as referred to in the previous question, the respondent, as a national authority, is obliged to disclose the environmental information requested when such a request is made after the granting of the authorisation or after the amendment of the authorisation respectively?

               3.

               How must the term ‘emissions into the environment’ in Article 4(2) of the Environmental Information Directive be interpreted, given what the parties have stated in that regard in section 5.5 of this interlocutory judgment, against the background of the content of the documents as set out in section 5.2?

               4.

                           (a)

                           Can data which provide an estimate of the release into the environment of a product, its active ingredient(s) and other components as a result of the use of the product be deemed to be ‘information on emissions into the environment’?

                           (b)

                           If so, does it matter whether those data have been obtained by means of (semi-) field studies or other types of studies (such as, for example, laboratory studies and translocation studies)?

               5.

               Can laboratory studies be deemed to be ‘information on emissions into the environment’ when the test is aimed at examining isolated aspects under standardised conditions and in that framework many factors, such as, for example (climatological influences) are excluded and the tests are often conducted with — in comparison with customary practice — high dosages?

               6.

               In that regard, must residues after the application of the product in the experimental set-up, in, for example, the air or on the ground, leaves, pollen or nectar of a crop (which is derived from treated seed), in honey or on non-target organisms also be included under ‘emissions into the environment’?

               7.

               And is that also the case in respect of the degree of (dust) drift when the product is applied in the experimental set-up?

               8.

               Do the words ‘information on emissions into the environment’, as referred to in the second sentence of the second paragraph of Article 4(2) of the Environmental Information Directive, mean that, if there are emissions into the environment, the information source must be disclosed in its entirety and not be limited to the (measurement) data which may, where applicable, be derived therefrom?

               9.

               Does the application of the exception relating to commercial or industrial information within the meaning of the aforementioned Article 4(2)(d) require a distinction to be made between ‘emissions’, on the one hand, and ‘discharges and other releases into the environment’ within the meaning of Article 2(1)(b) of the Environmental Information Directive, on the other hand?

      (1)  Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1).

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (OJ 2009 L 309, p. 1).

      (3)  Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (OJ 1998 L 123, p. 1).

      (4)  Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC (OJ 2003 L 41, p. 26).


title: Case C-262/11: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad, Bulgaria) — Kremikovtzi AD v Ministar na ikonomikata, energetikata i turizma i zamestnik-ministar na ikonomikata, energetikata i turizma (Accession of the Republic of Bulgaria to the European Union — EC-Bulgaria Association Agreement — Steel sector — Public aid for reconstruction granted prior to accession — Conditions — Viability of the recipients at the end of the restructuring period — Declaration of insolvency of a recipient following accession — Respective powers of the national authorities and the European Commission — National decision finding the existence of a public debt in the form of aid which has become unlawful — Decision EU-BG No 3/2006 — Annex V to the Act of Accession — Aid applicable following accession — Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Existing aid)

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/8

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad, Bulgaria) — Kremikovtzi AD v Ministar na ikonomikata, energetikata i turizma i zamestnik-ministar na ikonomikata, energetikata i turizma
   (Case C-262/11) (1)

   (Accession of the Republic of Bulgaria to the European Union - EC-Bulgaria Association Agreement - Steel sector - Public aid for reconstruction granted prior to accession - Conditions - Viability of the recipients at the end of the restructuring period - Declaration of insolvency of a recipient following accession - Respective powers of the national authorities and the European Commission - National decision finding the existence of a public debt in the form of aid which has become unlawful - Decision EU-BG No 3/2006 - Annex V to the Act of Accession - Aid applicable following accession - Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Existing aid)
   2013/C 26/15
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Kremikovtzi AD

      Defendants: Ministar na ikonomikata, energetikata i turizma i zamestnik-ministar na ikonomikata, energetikata i turizma

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Interpretation of the Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Bulgaria, of the other part (OJ 1994 L 358, p. 1), of Paragraph 1 of Annex V to the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded (OJ 2005 L 157, p. 203), of Article 9(4) of Protocol 2 on products covered by the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), of Article 3 of the Additional Protocol to the Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Bulgaria, of the other part (OJ 1995 L 317, p. 25) and of Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1) — State aid for reconstruction granted prior to the accession of Bulgaria to the European Union to steel producers within the framework of a restructuring program — Decision finding the existence of a public debt consisting of State aid which has become unlawful following a declaration of insolvency on the part of the beneficiary — Respective competencies of the national authorities and of the European Commission to decide on the incompatibility with the common market of State aid and to seek its recovery as unlawful aid

      Operative part of the judgment

   Proceedings to recover public aid granted to Kremikovtzi AD before the Republic of Bulgaria’s accession to the European Union, aid measures which, following that accession, were not ‘applicable’ for the purposes of Annex V to the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, must, in the event of infringement of the conditions laid down in Article 9(4) of Protocol No 2 to the Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Bulgaria, of the other part, concluded and approved on behalf of the Community by Decision 94/908/ECSC, EC, Euratom of the Council and the Commission of 19 December 1994, be based on Article 3 of the Additional Protocol to the Europe Agreement, as amended by Decision No 3/2006 of the EU-Bulgaria Association Council of 29 December 2006. In that context, the competent national authorities in the Republic of Bulgaria may, pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 3, adopt a decision to recover public aid which does not satisfy those conditions. A decision adopted by the Commission on the basis of the second paragraph of Article 3 of the Additional Protocol does not constitute a necessary prerequisite for the recovery of such aid by those authorities.

      (1)  OJ C 232, 6.8.2011.


title: Case C-83/11: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 September 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Secretary of State for the Home Department v Muhammad Sazzadur Rahman, Fazly Rabby Islam, Mohibullah Rahman (Directive 2004/38/EC — Right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States — Article 3(2) — Obligation to facilitate, in accordance with national legislation, entry and residence for ‘any other family members’ who are dependants of a Union citizen)

text:
               27.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/6

      Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 September 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Secretary of State for the Home Department v Muhammad Sazzadur Rahman, Fazly Rabby Islam, Mohibullah Rahman
      (Case C-83/11) (1)

      (Directive 2004/38/EC - Right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States - Article 3(2) - Obligation to facilitate, in accordance with national legislation, entry and residence for ‘any other family members’ who are dependants of a Union citizen)
      (2012/C 331/09)
      Language of the case: English

         Referring court

      Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Secretary of State for the Home Department

         Respondents: Muhammad Sazzadur Rahman, Fazly Rabby Islam, Mohibullah Rahman

         Re:

      Reference for a preliminary ruling — Upper Tribunal — Interpretation of Article 3(2) and Article 10(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77) — Concept of ‘any other family members’ of a Union citizen as referred to in Article 3(2) of the directive — Dependent family members of a married couple where one spouse is a third country national — Family members who are not direct ascendants of the married couple

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  On a proper construction of Article 3(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC:

                              —

                              the Member States are not required to grant every application for entry or residence submitted by family members of a Union citizen who do not fall under the definition in Article 2(2) of that directive, even if they show, in accordance with Article 10(2) thereof, that they are dependants of that citizen;

                              —

                              it is, however, incumbent upon the Member States to ensure that their legislation contains criteria which enable those persons to obtain a decision on their application for entry and residence that is founded on an extensive examination of their personal circumstances and, in the event of refusal, is justified by reasons;

                              —

                              the Member States have a wide discretion when selecting those criteria, but the criteria must be consistent with the normal meaning of the term ‘facilitate’ and of the words relating to dependence used in Article 3(2) and must not deprive that provision of its effectiveness; and

                              —

                              every applicant is entitled to a judicial review of whether the national legislation and its application satisfy those conditions.

                  2.

                  In order to fall within the category, referred to in Article 3(2) of Directive 2004/38, of family members who are ‘dependants’ of a Union citizen, the situation of dependence must exist in the country from which the family member concerned comes, at the very least at the time when he applies to join the Union citizen on whom he is dependent.

                  3.

                  On a proper construction of Article 3(2) of Directive 2004/38, the Member States may, in the exercise of their discretion, impose particular requirements relating to the nature and duration of dependence, provided that those requirements are consistent with the normal meaning of the words relating to the dependence referred to in Article 3(2)(a) of the directive and do not deprive that provision of its effectiveness.

                  4.

                  The question whether issue of the residence card referred to in Article 10 of Directive 2004/38 may be conditional on the requirement that the situation of dependence for the purposes of Article 3(2)(a) of that directive has endured in the host Member State does not fall within the scope of the directive.

         (1)  OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.


title: Case T-132/05: Action brought on 16 March 2005 by Nicola Falcione against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/38

         Action brought on 16 March 2005 by Nicola Falcione against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-132/05)
   (2005/C 143/73)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 16 March 2005 by Nicola Falcione, residing in Brussels, represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Xavier Martin, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of 24 March 2004 fixing the definitive recruitment grade at Grade A5/4;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant was appointed an official at Grade A5/4 by decision of 24 March 2004. In his application he challenges his definitive recruitment classification. In support of his application, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 31 of the Staff Regulations and a manifest error of assessment. The applicant claims that the Commission ought also to have taken into account his relevant work and university level experience between 16 July 1974 and 28 February 1982. The Commission omitted to take that experience into account because the applicant did not obtain his university economics degree until 1 March 1982.


title: Case C-502/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 30 September 2011 — Vivaio dei Molini Azienda Agricola Porro Savoldi ss v Autorità per la Vigilanza sui Contratti Pubblici di lavori, servizi e forniture

text:
               26.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 30 September 2011 — Vivaio dei Molini Azienda Agricola Porro Savoldi ss v Autorità per la Vigilanza sui Contratti Pubblici di lavori, servizi e forniture
   (Case C-502/11)
   2011/C 347/30
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Vivaio dei Molini Azienda Agricola Porro Savoldi ss

      Respondent: Autorità per la Vigilanza sui Contratti Pubblici di lavori, servizi e forniture

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Community law and, in particular, Article 6 of Directive 93/37/EEC (1) (subsequently, Article 4 of Directive 2004/18/EC (2)) preclude, in principle, a provision of national law (such as Article 10(1)(a) of Law No 109/1994 (subsequently, Article 34(1)(a) of Legislative Decree No 163/2006), which reserves the right to participate in public tendering procedures to undertakings which are engaged in a commercial activity, thereby excluding certain operators (such as civil-law partnerships) which do not ordinarily and predominantly engage in that type of activity; or is that prohibition reasonable and non-discriminatory in the light of the special rules governing civil-law partnerships and their special asset structure?

         In the event that the first question is answered in the negative, the following question is also referred to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

               2.

               Does Community law and, in particular, Article 6 of Directive 93/37/EEC (subsequently, Article 4 of Directive 2004/18/EC) and the principle of the freedom of entities admitted to participate in tendering procedures to adopt a particular legal form, allow the national legislature to place limits on the legal capacity of a contractor (or, according to the definition given in Directive 2004/18/EC, an economic operator), in the light of the special features of the rules of national law governing such contractors, prohibiting them from participating in public tendering procedures, or is such a restriction in breach of the principles of reasonableness and non-discrimination?

      (1)  OJ L 199, p. 54.

      (2)  OJ L 134, p. 114.


title: Case C-561/13: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Obvodní soud pro Prahu 1 — Czech Republic) — Hoštická a.s., Jaroslav Haškovec, Zemědělské družstvo Senice na Hané v Česká republika — Ministerstvo zemědělství (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common agricultural policy — Support schemes — Establishment of support schemes in the new Member States — Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 — Article 143ba — Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 — Article 126 — Separate sugar payment — Decoupling of that payment from production — Meaning of ‘the criteria adopted by the relevant Member States in 2006 and 2007’  — Representative period)

text:
               22.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/10

         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Obvodní soud pro Prahu 1 — Czech Republic) — Hoštická a.s., Jaroslav Haškovec, Zemědělské družstvo Senice na Hané v Česká republika — Ministerstvo zemědělství
   (Case C-561/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common agricultural policy - Support schemes - Establishment of support schemes in the new Member States - Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 - Article 143ba - Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 - Article 126 - Separate sugar payment - Decoupling of that payment from production - Meaning of ‘the criteria adopted by the relevant Member States in 2006 and 2007’ - Representative period))
   (2014/C 462/16)
   Language of the case: Czech

      Referring court

   Obvodní soud pro Prahu 1

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Hoštická a.s., Jaroslav Haškovec, Zemědělské družstvo Senice na Hané

      Defendant: Česká republika — Ministerstvo zemědělství

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 126(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘the criteria adopted by the relevant Member States in 2006 and 2007’ includes the marketing year which the Member States must choose before 30 April 2006 as the representative period for the grant of the separate sugar payment, under Article 143ba(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001, as amended by Council Regulations (EC) No 319/2006 of 20 February 2006, No 2011/2006 of 19 December 2006 and No 2012/2006 of 19 December 2006.

      (1)  OJ C 45, 15.2.2014.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 14 May 1998 in Case T-347/94: Mayr-Melnhof Kartongesellschaft mbH v. Commission of the European Communities (Competition - Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty - Concept of agreement - Information exchange - Order - Fine - Determination of the amount - Statement of reasons - Extenuating circumstances - Rights of the defence - Cooperation during the administrative procedure - Principle of equal treatment)

text:
4.7.98                  EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 209/35
Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe, v. Commission of the European                  Mills Ltd, established at Valkeakoski, Finland, Tampella
Communities (Agents: Bernd Langeheine, Richard Lyal                   Corporation, established at Tampere, Finland, Oy Kyro
and Dirk Schroeder) Ð application for annulment of                    AB, established at Kyröskoski, Finland, represented
Commission Decision 94/601/EC of 13 July 1994 relating                initially by Hans Hellmann and Hans-Joachim Voges,
to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/C/              Rechtsanwälte, Cologne, then by Hans Hellmann and
33.833 Ð Cartonboard, OJ L 243 of 19.9.1994, p. 1) Ð                  Hans-Joachim Hellmann, Rechtsanwälte, Karlsruhe, with
the Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition),                      an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
composed of B. Vesterdorf, President of the Chamber, C. P.            Loesch and Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe v. Commission of the
BrieÈt, P. Lindh, A. Potocki, and J. D. Cooke, Judges; J.             European       Communities      (Agents:   initially    Bernd
Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has              Langeheine and Richard Lyal, then by Richard Lyal and
given a judgment on 14 May 1998 in which it:                          Dirk Schroeder) Ð application for annulment of
                                                                      Commission Decision 94/601/EC of 13 July 1994 relating
1. Annuls, as regards the applicant, the first to fourth              to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/C/
     paragraphs of Article 2 of Commission Decision 94/               33.833 Ð Cartonboard, OJ L 243 of 19.9.1994, p. 1) Ð
     601/EC of 13 July 1994 relating to a proceeding under            the Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition),
     Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/C/33.833 Ð                       composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President of the Chamber,
     Cartonboard) save and except the following passages:             C. P. BrieÈt, P. Lindh, A. Potocki and J. D. Cooke, Judges;
                                                                      J. Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
                                                                      given a judgment on 14 May 1998, in which it:
     The undertakings named in Article 1 shall forthwith
     bring the said infringement to an end, if they have not
     already done so. They shall henceforth refrain in                1. Dismisses the applications as unfounded in so far as
     relation to their cartonboard activities from any                     they seek annulment of Commission Decision 94/601/
     agreement or concerted practice which may have the                    EC of 13 July 1994 relating to a proceeding under
     same or a similar object or effect, including any                     Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/C/33.833 Ð
     exchange of commercial information:                                   Cartonboard).
     (a) by which the participants are directly or
           indirectly informed of the production, sales, order        2. Dismisses the applications as inadmissible in so far as
           backlog, machine utilisation rates, selling prices,             they seek reduction of the fine imposed by Article 3 of
           costs or marketing plans of other individual                    that decision.
           producers.
     Any scheme for the exchange of general information               3. Orders the applicants to pay the costs.
     to which they subscribe, such as the Fides sytem or its
     successor, shall be so conducted as to exclude any               (1) OJ C 386, 31.12.1994.
     information from which the behaviour of individual
     producers can be identified.'.
2. Dismisses the application as regards the remaining
     claims.
3. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 14 May 1998
(1) OJ C 380, 31.12.1994.
                                                                      in Case T-347/94: Mayr-Melnhof Kartongesellschaft mbH
                                                                             v. Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                      (Competition Ð Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty Ð
                                                                      Concept of agreement Ð Information exchange Ð Order
                                                                      Ð Fine Ð Determination of the amount Ð Statement of
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             reasons Ð Extenuating circumstances Ð Rights of the
                         of 14 May 1998                               defence Ð Cooperation during the administrative
                                                                                procedure Ð Principle of equal treatment)
in Joined Cases T-339/94, T-340/94, T-341/94 and
T-342/94: Metsä-Serla Oy and Others v. Commission of                                          (98/C 209/75)
                  the European Communities (1)
(Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 Ð Joint and several                                (Language of the case: German)
                liability for payment of the fine)
                           (98/C 209/74)                              In Case T-347/94: Mayr-Melnhof Kartongesellschaft mbH,
                                                                      established at Vienna, represented initially by Otfried
                (Language of the case: German)                        Lieberknecht,       Burkhard     Richter,  Klaus       Benner,
                                                                      Rechtsanwälte, Düsseldorf, and by Michel Waelbroeck
In Joined Cases T-339/94, T-340/94, T-341/94 and T-342/               and Denis Waelbroeck, of the Brussels Bar, with an
94: Metsä-Serla Oy, established at Helsinki, United Paper             address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
 ---pagebreak--- C 209/36              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                       4.7.98
Alex Bonn, 7 Val Sainte-Croix v. Commission of the                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
European Communities (Agents: Bernd Langeheine,
                                                                                of 14 May 1998
Richard Lyal and Dirk Schroeder) Ð application for
annulment of Commission Decision 94/601/EC of 13 July              in Case T-348/94: Enso EspanÄola SA v. Commission of the
1994 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC                              European Communities (1)
Treaty (IV/C/33.833 Ð Cartonboard, OJ L 243 of
19.9.1994, p. 1) Ð the Court (Third Chamber, Extended              (Competition Ð Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty Ð Right
Composition), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President of             to an independant and impartial tribunal Ð Right of the
the Chamber, C. P. BrieÈt, P. Lindh, A. Potocki and J. D.          defence Ð Statement of reasons Ð Fine Ð Determination
Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the        of the amount Ð Method of calculation Ð Mitigating
Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 May 1998, in                 circumstances Ð Principle of equal treatment Ð Principle
which it:                                                                                of proportionality)
                                                                                (98/C 209/76)
1. Annuls, as regards the applicant, the first to fourth
    paragraphs of Article 2 of Commission Decision 94/                             (Language of the case: Spanish)
    601/EC of 13 July 1994 relating to a proceeding under
    Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/C/33.833 Ð
    Cartonboard) save and except the following passages:           In Case T-348/94: Enso EspanÄola SA, established at
                                                                   Castellbisbal, Barcelona, Spain, represented initially by
                                                                   Antonio Creus Carreras and Xavier Ruiz Calzado, of the
    The undertakings named in Article 1 shall forthwith           Brussels Bar, and Bonifacio García Porras, of the
    bring the said infringement to an end, if they have not        Salamanca Bar, then by Messrs. Creus Carreras, Ruiz Cal-
    already done so. They shall henceforth refrain in              zado and Eva Contreras Ynzenga, of the Madrid Bar v.
    relation to their cartonboard activities from any              Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
    agreement or concerted practice which may have the             initially Francisco Enrique GonzaÂlez Díaz and Richard
    same or a similar object or effect, including any              Lyal, then Richard Lyal and Ricardo Garcia Vicente) Ð
    exchange of commercial information:                            application for annulment of Commission Decision 94/
                                                                   601/EC of 13 July 1994 relating to a proceeding under
                                                                   Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/C/33.833 Ð Cartonboard,
    (a) by which the participants are directly or
                                                                   OJ L 243 of 19.9.1994, p. 1), the Court (Third Chamber,
          indirectly informed of the production, sales, order
                                                                   Extended Composition), composed of B. Vesterdorf,
          backlog, machine utilisation rates, selling prices,
                                                                   President of the Chamber, C. P. BrieÈt, P. Lindh, A. Potocki
          costs or marketing plans of other individual
                                                                   and J. D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez,
          producers.
                                                                   Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                   14 May 1998 in which it:
    Any scheme for the exchange of general information
    to which they subscribe, such as the Fides system or its       1. Annuls, as regards the applicant, Article 1 of
    successor, shall be so conducted as to exclude any                  Commission Decision 94/601/EC of 13 July 1994
    information from which the behaviour of individual                  relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC
    producers can be identified.'.                                      Treaty (IV/C/33.833 Ð Cartonboard) in so far as the
                                                                        date of the beginning of the infringement alleged
                                                                        against it is stated to be prior to February 1989.
2. Sets the amount of the fine imposed on the
    applicant by Article 3 of Decision 94/601/EC at ECU
    17 000 000.                                                    2. Annuls, as regards the applicant, the eighth indent of
                                                                        Article 1 of Decision 94/601/EC.
3. Dismisses the application as regards the remaining
    claims.                                                        3. Sets the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant
                                                                        by Article 3 of Decision 94/601/EC at ECU 1 200 000.
4. Orders the Commission to pay its own costs and one-
    quarter of the applicant's costs.                              4. Dismisses the application as regards the remaining
                                                                        claims.
5. Orders the applicant to bear three-quarters of its own
    costs.                                                         5. Orders each party to bear its own costs.
(1) OJ 386, 31.12.1994.                                            (1) OJ C 380, 31.12.1994.


title: Case C-232/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Budai Központi Kerületi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 4 May 2017 — VE v WD

text:
               7.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/3

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Budai Központi Kerületi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 4 May 2017 — VE v WD
   (Case C-232/17)
   (2017/C 256/03)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Budai Központi Kerületi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: VE

      Defendant: WD

      Questions referred

               1.

               With regard to the interpretation of the opportunity to examine all the terms of a contract, referred to in the twentieth recital of Directive 93/13, and the requirement that that contract be drafted in plain, intelligible language, laid down in Articles 4(2) and 5 of the same directive, are the relevant contractual terms to be regarded as not being unfair in the case where the consumer is not given an opportunity to examine the amount of any essential element of the loan agreement (the subject matter of the agreement, that is to say the loan amount, the repayment instalments and the interest on the transaction) until after the agreement has been concluded (not because this is objectively necessary but pursuant to a stipulation to that effect which has been laid down by the seller or supplier in the standard terms and conditions of contract and has not been individually negotiated), by means of a declaration of intent by the seller or supplier which is unilateral (notwithstanding that it states that it forms part of the agreement) and legally binding on the consumer?

               2.

               With regard to the interpretation of the opportunity to examine all the terms of a contract, referred to in the twentieth recital of Directive 93/13, and the requirement that that contract be drafted in plain, intelligible language, laid down in Articles 4(2) and 5 of the same directive, are the relevant contractual terms to be regarded as not being unfair in the case where the loan agreement communicates any essential element thereof (the subject matter of the agreement, that is to say the loan amount, the repayment instalments and the interest on the transaction) only by use of the expression ‘for information purposes’, without making it clear whether or not the part communicated for information purposes is legally binding or capable of forming the basis of rights and obligations?

               3.

               With regard to the interpretation of the opportunity to examine all the terms of a contract, referred to in the twentieth recital of Directive 93/13, and the requirement that that contract be drafted in plain, intelligible language, laid down in Articles 4(2) and 5 of the same directive, are the relevant contractual terms to be regarded as not being unfair in the case where the loan agreement defines any essential element by using incorrect terminology, in particular where, in a foreign-exchange-based loan agreement (in which the credit provided for in the loan agreement is determined and recorded in a foreign currency (‘the credit currency’) and the obligation to pay that credit is fulfilled in the national currency (‘the fulfilment currency’)),

                           (1)

                           the loan amount is classified as

                                       —

                                       the amount of the line of credit, expressed in the credit currency; or

                                       —

                                       the maximum limit of the loan amount, determined in the credit currency; or

                                       —

                                       the financing requested by the consumer, determined in the fulfilment currency; or

                                       —

                                       the disbursement limit, determined in the fulfilment currency?

                           (2)

                           the repayment instalments are classified as the maximum foreseeable limit of the repayment instalments, expressed in the credit currency and/or in the fulfilment currency?

               4.

               With regard to the interpretation of the opportunity to examine all the terms of a contract, referred to in the twentieth recital of Directive 93/13, and the requirement that that contract be drafted in plain, intelligible language, laid down in Articles 4(2) and 5 of the same directive, are the relevant contractual terms to be regarded as not being unfair in the case where, in a foreign-exchange-based loan agreement (not because this is objectively necessary but pursuant to a stipulation to this effect which has been laid down by the seller or supplier in the standard terms and conditions of contract and has not been not been individually negotiated), the [elements forming the] subject matter of the agreement, that is to say the loan amount and repayment instalments,

                           (1)

                           are determined, in the credit currency, by means of a specific amount (consisting exclusively in a series of characters made up of digits ranging between 0 and 9) and, in the fulfilment currency, at most by means of an accurate calculation method?

                           (2)

                           are determined, in the fulfilment currency, by means of a specific amount and, in the credit currency, at most by means of an accurate calculation method?

                           (3)

                           are determined, in both the credit currency and the fulfilment currency, at most by means of an accurate calculation method?

                           (4)

                           are not determined at all in the credit currency and are determined in the fulfilment currency at most by means of an accurate calculation method?

                           (5)

                           are not determined at all in the fulfilment currency and are determined in the credit currency at most by means of an accurate calculation method?

                           4.1.

                           In the context of Question 4(5) above, in the event that there is no need to determine any specific amount and include it in the loan agreement at the time when it is concluded, is the possibility of making an accurate calculation of the loan amount at the time when the agreement is concluded guaranteed, where (not because this is objectively necessary but pursuant to a stipulation to this effect which has been laid down by the seller or supplier in the standard terms and conditions of contract and has not been individually negotiated)

                                       (1)

                                       the loan agreement does not contain the specific loan amount in any currency;

                                       (2)

                                       the loan agreement contains the specific financing requested by the consumer or the specific disbursement limit, expressed in the fulfilment currency;

                                       (3)

                                       the loan agreement does not contain the loan amount in the form of an accurate calculation method in the currency of fulfilment; and,

                                       (4)

                                       so far as concerns the accurate calculation of the loan amount in the credit currency, the calculation component expressed in the loan agreement is not precise, being only a maximum limit (the specific financing requested by the consumer or the specific limit of the disbursement, expressed in the fulfilment currency)?

                           4.2.

                                       4.2.1.

                                       In the event that there is no need to establish specific amounts and include them in the loan agreement at the time when it is concluded, is it the case, so far as concerns an accurate calculation, that:

                                                   (1)

                                                   it is a legal requirement for the loan agreement to determine the amount of the subject matter of the agreement, that is to say the loan amount and the repayment instalments (in the case of variable-interest products, the repayment instalments corresponding to the first interest period), by means of a method for making an accurate calculation at the time when the agreement is concluded; or

                                                   (2)

                                                   it is sufficient for the loan agreement, at the time when it is concluded, to contain objectively identifiable parameters enabling those values (the subject matter of the agreement and the repayment instalments) to be calculated at a future date (that is to say for the loan agreement (at the time when it is concluded) to prescribe only the parameters for making an accurate calculation in the future)?

                                       4.2.2.

                                       In the event that it is sufficient for the amount of the subject matter of the agreement, that is to say the loan amount and the repayment instalments (in the case of variable-interest products, the repayment instalments corresponding to the first interest period) to be capable of being calculated in the credit currency at a future date, must that future date (which, logically, will be the point at which the amount of the credit advanced under the agreement is established in the credit currency) be objectively determined in the loan agreement at the time when it is concluded or may the determination of that future date be one of the discretionary powers exercised exclusively by the seller or supplier?

                           4.3.

                           So far as concerns products based on periodically variable interest rates, is it be regarded as sufficient and therefore not unfair, in the case of repayment instalments, for the specific amounts and/or the accurate calculation method to be established in the credit currency and/or the fulfilment currency (and included in the loan agreement at the time when it is concluded) in relation to the first interest period falling within the term of the agreement, or is it a legal requirement that the accurate calculation method be established in the credit currency and/or the fulfilment currency (and included in the loan agreement at the time when it is concluded) in relation to all the interest periods falling within the term of the agreement?

                           4.4.

                           Can an accurate calculation be guaranteed in such a way as not to be unfair only by use of the relevant mathematical formula, or is another method feasible?

                                       4.4.1.

                                       In the event that an accurate calculation need not be guaranteed by use of the relevant mathematical formula, would a sufficiently precise textual description be feasible?

                                       4.4.2.

                                       In the event that a clear calculation need not be guaranteed by use of the relevant mathematical formula, would it even be feasible for reference to be made to technical terms (such as annuity or linear depreciation, for example), without any further explanation?


title: Case C-474/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Salerno (Italy) lodged on 20 October 2014  — Criminal proceedings against Cristiano Pontillo

text:
               22.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/17

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Salerno (Italy) lodged on 20 October 2014 — Criminal proceedings against Cristiano Pontillo
   (Case C-474/14)
   (2014/C 462/27)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Salerno

      Party to the main proceedings

   Cristiano Pontillo

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, as also construed in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16 February 2012 [in Joined Cases C 72/10 and C 77/10], to be interpreted as precluding a call for tenders for the award of licences with a period of validity shorter than that of licences awarded in the past, where that tendering procedure has been launched in order to remedy the consequences of the unlawful exclusion of a certain number of operators from earlier tendering procedures?

               2.

               Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, as also construed in the above judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, to be interpreted as precluding the possibility that sufficient justification for the shorter period of validity of licences offered for tender, as compared with licences awarded in the past, can be found in the requirement for the licensing system to be reorganised through the alignment of licence expiry dates?

               3.

               Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, as also construed in the above judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, to be interpreted as precluding the imposition of an obligation to transfer, free of charge, the use of tangible and intangible assets represented by the betting management and collection network in the event that the activity has ceased owing to the expiry of the licence or as a result of measures disqualifying the licence-holder or withdrawing the licence?


title: Case T-143/06: Action brought on  19 May 2006  — MTZ Polyfilms v Council

text:
               29.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/34

         Action brought on 19 May 2006 — MTZ Polyfilms v Council
   (Case T-143/06)
   (2006/C 178/63)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: MTZ Polyfilms Ltd. (Mumbai, India) (represented by: P. De Baere, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council Regulation (EC) No 366/2006 of 27 February 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating, inter alia, in India;

               —

               order the Council to bear the costs of proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant produces and exports polyethylene terephthalate film to the European Community.
   In support of its application, it first claims that the contested regulation violates Article 2(8) and 2(9) of the basic regulation (1). The applicant contests that the contested regulation constructs the applicant's export price to the Community on the basis of its export prices to third countries, because the actual export prices to the Community are allegedly unreliable due to the existence of minimum import prices.
   According to the applicant, its export prices are not unreliable in the meaning of Article 2(9) of the basic regulation. Furthermore, the applicant claims that the methodology used is incompatible with the basic regulation which spells out the methodologies that can be used for determining an export price. The applicant submits that Articles 2(8) and 2(9) of the basic regulation apply equally to review investigations, such as the contested proceedings, regardless of whether there were undertakings in place.
   Second, the applicant invokes a breach of the agreement on implementation of Article VI of GATT 1994 (2). According to the applicant, its export price is not unreliable in the meaning of Articles 2.1 and 2.3 of that agreement. In addition, the applicant submits that the methodology used is incompatible with Articles 2.1, 2.3 and 11 of the agreement. The applicant submits finally that Articles 2.1 and 2.3 of the agreement apply equally to reviews carried out pursuant to Article 11 of the agreement, such as the partial interim review at hand.
   Finally, the applicant invokes a lack of legal basis for the methodology applied to determine the applicant's export price to the Community and a breach of the principle of legal certainty by making it impossible for exporting producers to determine their behaviour in the context of a price undertaking.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ L 56, 1996, p. 1).

      (2)  Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (WTO-GATT 1994) - anti-dumping agreement (OJ L 336, 1994, p. 103).