title: Case C-156/99: Action brought on 28 April 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
7.8.1999                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 226/11
Action brought on 21 April 1999 by the Commission of                     Finally, the Commission takes the view that interpretation
the European Communities against the Kingdom of the                      consistent with a directive, as a means whereby to compensate
                             Netherlands                                 for the fact that that directive has not been expressly trans-
                                                                         posed, does not satisfy the requirements of Article 249 EC (ex
                                                                         Article 189).
                           (Case C-144/99)
                                                                         (1) OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.
                          (1999/C 226/17)
An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 21 April 1999 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by P. Van Nuffel, of its Legal Service,         Action brought on 28 April 1999 by the Commission of
acting as Agent, assisted by M.H. van der Woude, of the                   the European Communities against the French Republic
Brussels Bar, and L. Dommering-Van Rongen, of the Amster-
dam Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
office of C. Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner                                       (Case C-156/99)
Centre. Kirchberg.
                                                                                (1999/C 226/18)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                         Court of Justice of the European Communities on 28 April
                                                                         1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and            represented by Enrico Traversa, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent,
     administrative provisions necessary for the full implemen-          assisted by Nicole Coutrelis, of the Paris Bar, with an address
     tation in Netherlands law of Articles 4(2) and 5 of Council         for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
     Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in              Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
     consumer contracts (1), the Kingdom of the Netherlands
     has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 249 EC (ex
     Article 189) and under that directive;                              The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                         the Court should:
— order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs of               — Declare that, by limiting the manufacturer’s right to deduct
     the proceedings.                                                        the amount of purchase vouchers from tris taxable amount
                                                                             for VAT purposes to money-saving vouchers where the
                                                                             manufacturer delivers direct to the retailer; and excluding
                                                                             money-saving vouchers where there is an indirect relation-
                                                                             ship between the manufacturer and the retailer, and all
                                                                             cash-on-delivery vouchers, the French Republic has failed
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              to fulfil its obligations under Article 11A(1)(a) and llC(l) of
                                                                             Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 (the Sixth
                                                                             VAT Directive) (1);
The obligation of transparency resulting from Article 4(2), final        — Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
clause, and Article 5, first sentence, of Directive 93/13/EEC has
not in any way been explicitly transposed in Netherlands law.
This finding also applies in regard to the contra proferentem
principle, as set out in the second and third sentences of Article       Pleas in law and arguments
5 of the directive. The Commission takes the view that the
implicit method of transposition on which the Netherlands
Government relies (in particular Articles 3:35 and 6:248 of              The distinction drawn in the French legislation has no basis in
the Burgerlijk Wetboek, as well as the manner in which those             Article 11 of the Sixth VAT Directive, as interpreted by the
provisions are applied in case-law) does not in this case                Court inter alia in Elida Gibbs [1996] ECR I-5339, and cannot
constitute implementation for the purposes of Article 249 EC             therefore affect the rules on the taxable amount.
(ex Article 189). F i r s t , express rights require an express
method of implementation; the consume must be placed in a
position in which he is able himself to know his rights.                 (1) OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.
S e c o n d , the Commission doubts whether the implicit
method of implementation effected by the Netherlands
Government achieves the result intended by Articles 4(2) and
5.


18.12.1999              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 366/23
Action brought on 28 October 1999 by the Commission                              Removal from the register of Case C-116/99 (1)
of the European Communities against the Republic of
                                 Austria
                                                                                (1999/C 366/40)
                           (Case C-411/99)
                                                                          By order of 21 September 1999 the President of the Court of
                                                                          Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                           (1999/C 366/38)
                                                                          from the register of Case C-116/99: Commission of the
                                                                          European Communities v Italian Republic.
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 28 October 1999 by the Commission of the European
                                                                          (1) OJ No C 188 of 3.7.1999.
Communities, represented by Josef Christian Schieferer, of its
Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
(1) declare that, by failing to adopt and communicate to
     the Commission the laws, regulations and administrative
     measures necessary in order to comply with Directive
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-349/98 (1)
     95/47/EC (1) of the European Parliament and the Council
     of 24 October 1995 on the use of standards for the
     transmission of television signals, the Republic of Austria                                  (1999/C 366/41)
     has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
(2) order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.                       By order of 22 September 1999 the President of the Court of
                                                                          Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                          from the register of Case C-349/98: Commission of the
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case               European Communities v Italian Republic.
C-386/99 (2); the time-limit laid down in Article 8 of the
directive expired on 23 August 1996.
                                                                          (1) OJ No C 340 of 7.11.1998.
( 1) OJ L 281 of 23.11.1995, p. 51.
(2) See p. 20 of this Official Journal.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-12/99 (1)
        Removal from the register of Case C-474/98 (1)
                           (1999/C 366/39)                                                        (1999/C 366/42)
By order of 20 September 1999 the President of the Court of               By order of 23 September 1999 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal               Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-474/98 (reference for a preliminary           from the register of Case C-12/99: Commission of the Euro-
ruling by the Tribunal Administratif de Lille): Clinique Grégoire         pean Communities v Portuguese Republic.
SA v Direction Régionale des Impôts du Nord-Pas-de-Calais.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.
(1) OJ No C 71 of 13.3.1999.


24.2.2001              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 61/13
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    Removal from the register of Case C-67/00 (1)
—     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and                               (2001/C 61/24)
      administrative measures necessary in order to comply
      with Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996              By order of 13 September 2000 the President of the Court of
      concerning integrated pollution prevention and con-               Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
      trol (1) or, in any event, to inform the Commission               from the register of Case C-67/00: Commission of the
      thereof, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to comply with           European Communities v Ireland.
      its obligations under that directive;
                                                                        (1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.
—     order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case C-68/00 (1)
in Case C-26/01; the time-limit for transposition expired on
30 October 1999.
                                                                                (2001/C 61/25)
(1) OJ L 257 of 10.10.1996, p. 26.                                      By order of 13 September 2000 the President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                        from the register of Case C-68/00: Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities v Ireland.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-505/99 (1)
                         (2001/C 61/23)
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case C-70/00 (1)
By order of 6 September 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal                                     (2001/C 61/26)
from the register of Case C-505/99: Commission of the
European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.                              By order of 13 September 2000 the President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                        from the register of Case C-70/00: Commission of the
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.                                               European Communities v Ireland.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 122 of 29.4.2000.


title: Case C-271/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Belgium) lodged on 31 May 2010 — Vereniging van Educatieve en Wetenschappelijke Auteurs (VEWA) v Belgische Staat

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/22

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Belgium) lodged on 31 May 2010 — Vereniging van Educatieve en Wetenschappelijke Auteurs (VEWA) v Belgische Staat
   (Case C-271/10)
   ()
   2010/C 234/36
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State van België

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Vereniging van Educatieve en Wetenschappelijke Auteurs (VEWA)

      Defendant: Belgische Staat

      Question referred

   Does Article 5(1) of Council Directive 92/100/EEC (1) of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property, now Article 6(1) of Directive 2006/115/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property, according to which at least authors should obtain a remuneration for public lending, preclude a national provision which sets the remuneration at a flat rate of EUR 1 per adult per year and of EUR 0,5 per minor per year?

      (1)  OJ 1992 L 346, p. 61.

      (2)  OJ 2006 L 376, p. 28.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 March 1999 in Case T-157/94: Empresa Nacional Siderúrgica, SA (Ensidesa) v. Commission of the European Communities (ECSC Treaty - Competition - Agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices - Price-fixing - Market sharing - Systems for the exchange of information)

text:
5.6.1999                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 160/17
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                         of 11 March 1999                                                          of 20 April 1999
in Case T-157/94: Empresa Nacional Siderúrgica, SA                        in Joined Cases T-305/94, T-306/94, T-307/94, T-313/94,
(Ensidesa) v. Commission of the European Communi-                          T-315/94, T-316/94, T-318/94, T-325/94, T-328/94,
                                 ties (1)                                  T-329/94 and T-335/94: Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij
                                                                           NV and Others v. Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties (1)
(ECSC Treaty — Competition — Agreements between
undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and                (Competition — article 85 of the EC Treaty — Effects of a
concerted practices — Price-fixing — Market sharing —                      judgment annulling a measure — Rights of the defence —
            Systems for the exchange of information)                                                     Fine)
                           (1999/C 160/33)                                                          (1999/C 160/34)
                     (Language of the case: Spanish)                       (Languages of the case: German, English, French, Italian and Dutch)
In case T-157/94: Empresa Nacional Siderúrgica, SA (Ensidesa),            In cases T-305/94, T-306/94, T-307/94, T-313/94, T-315/94,
having its registered office in Avilés (Spain), represented by             T-316/94, T-318/94, T-325/94, T-328/94, T-329/94 and
Santiago Martinez Lage and Jaime Pérez-Bustamante Köster, of               T-335/94 : Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij NV, established in
the Madrid Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at               Brussels, represented by Inne G. F. Cath, an advocate with right
the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31, Grand-Rue, v. Commission                   of audience before the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, with an
of the European Communities (Agents: initially Julian Currall,             address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Lambert
Francisco Enrique González-Diaz and Géraud Sajust de Bergu-               Dupong, 4-6, rue de la Boucherie, ELF Atochem SA, established
es, and subsequently Jean-Louis Dewost, Julian Currall and Guy             in Paris, represented by Xavier de Roux, Charles-Henri Léger
Charrier, assisted by Ricardo Garcı́a Vicente) — application for           and Jacques-Philippe Gunther, all of the Paris Bar, with an
the annulment of Commission Decision 94/215/ECSC of                        address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jacques
16 February 1994 relating to a proceeding pursuant to article              Loesch, 11, rue Goethe, BASF AG, established in Ludwigshafen,
65 of the ECSC Treaty concerning agreements and concerted                  Germany, represented by Ferdinand Hermanns, of the Düssel-
practices engaged in by European producers of beams (OJ                    dorf Bar, with an address for service at the Chambers of
L 116, 6.5.1994, p. 1) — the Court of First Instance                       Jacques Loesch and Marc Wolters, 11, rue Goethe, Shell
(Second Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of:                       International Chemical Company Ltd, established in London,
C. W. Bellamy, acting as President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung,             represented by Kenneth B. Parker, QC, instructed by John
Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar,            W. Osborne, Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxem-
has given a judgment on 11 March 1999, in which it:                        bourg at the Chambers of Jean Hoss, 2, place Winston
                                                                           Churchill, DSM NV and DSM Kunststoffen BV, established in
                                                                           Heerlen, Netherlands, represented by Inne G F. Cath, an
1. fixes at EUR 3 350 000 the amount of the fine imposed on the            advocate with a right of audience before the Hoge Raad der
     applicant by article 4 of Commission Decision 94/215/ECSC of          Nederlanden, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
     16 February 1994 relating to a proceeding pursuant to article 65      Chambers of Lambert Dupong, 4-6, rue de la Boucherie,
     of the ECSC Treaty concerning agreements and concerted practices      Wacker-Chemie GmbH, established in Munich, Germany,
     engaged in by European producers of beams,                            Hoechst AG, established in Frankfurt-am-Main, Germany, both
                                                                           represented by Hans Hellmann and Hans-Joachim Hellmann,
                                                                           Rechtsanwälte, Cologne, with an address for service in Luxem-
2. dismisses the remainder of the action,                                  bourg at the Chambers of Jacques Loesch and Marc Wolters,
                                                                           11, rue Goethe, Société artésienne de Vinyle, established in
                                                                           Paris, represented by Bernard van de Walle de Ghelcke, of the
3. orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay three             Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
     quarters of the defendant’s costs. The defendant shall bear a         Chambers of Alex Schmitt, 7, Val Sainte-Croix, Montedison
     quarter of its own costs.                                             SpA, established in Milan, Italy, represented by Giuseppe
                                                                           Celona, Giorgio Aghina, of the Milan Bar, and Piero Angelo
                                                                           Maria Ferrari, of the Rome Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                           Luxembourg at the Chambers of Georges Margue, 20, rue
(1) OJ C 146, 28.5.1994.                                                   Philippe II, Imperial Chemical Industries plc, established in
                                                                           London, represented by David Vaughan QC and David Ander-
                                                                           son, Barrister, instructed by Victor White and Richard Coles,
                                                                           Solicitors, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                           Chambers of Lambert Dupong, 4-6, rue de la Boucherie, Hüls
                                                                           AG, established in Marl, Germany, represented initially by


title: Case C-598/12: Order of the President of the Court of 22 November 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland, interveners: Kingdom of the Netherlands, Federal Republic of Germany, Czech Republic, Republic of Finland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Republic of Estonia

text:
               7.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/28

         Order of the President of the Court of 22 November 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland, interveners: Kingdom of the Netherlands, Federal Republic of Germany, Czech Republic, Republic of Finland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Republic of Estonia
   (Case C-598/12) (1)

   2014/C 102/39
   Language of the case: Polish
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 79, 16.3.2013.


C 7/18                  EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   11.1.2003
Since the United Kingdom has not informed the Commission                         Removal from the register of Case C-367/01 ( 1)
of the provisions adopted to comply fully with the Directive,
and since the Commission is in possession of no other                                              (2003/C 7/35)
information enabling it to conclude that the United Kingdom
has adopted the necessary provisions, it is compelled to assume
that the United Kingdom has not yet adopted such provisions              By order of 16 October 2002 the President of the Court of
and has thus failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive.       Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                         from the register of Case C-367/01: Commission of the
( 1) OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5                                                  European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
                                                                         (1 ) OJ C 331 of 24.11.2001.
        Removal from the register of Case C-374/00 ( 1)
                           (2003/C 7/33)                                         Removal from the register of Case C-371/01 ( 1)
                                                                                (2003/C 7/36)
By order of 23 October 2002 the President of the Sixth
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities
ordered the removal from the register of Case C-374/00:                  By order of 23 October 2002 the President of the Third
Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic                        Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities
Republic.                                                                ordered the removal from the register of Case C-371/01:
                                                                         Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic
                                                                         Republic.
( 1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.
                                                                         (1 ) OJ C 348 of 08.12.2001.
      Removal from the register of Case C-448/00 P (1)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-158/02 ( 1)
                           (2003/C 7/34)
                                                                                (2003/C 7/37)
By order of 4 November 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                  By order of 25 October 2002 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-448/00 P: Commission of the                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
European Communities v BP Chemicals Ltd.                                 from the register of Case C-158/02 (Referral for a preliminary
                                                                         ruling by the Tribunale di Roma): Lidia Marcaletti v Istituto
                                                                         nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS).
( 1) OJ C 28 of 27.01.2001.
                                                                         (1 ) OJ C 144 of 15.06.2002.


title: Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 March 2003 in Case C-170/01 P: Compañía Internacional de Pesca y Derivados SA (INPESCA) v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Action for annulment — Action for damages — Confirmatory measure — Absence of substantive new facts — Inadmissible — Appeal manifestly unfounded)

text:
19.7.2003               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 171/9
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                       2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                             represented by B. Stromsky and R. Amorosi, acting as Agents.
                        (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
                         of 26 March 2003
                                                                             1.    declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
in Case C-170/01 P: Compañía Internacional de Pesca y                              within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
Derivados SA (INPESCA) v Commission of the European                                administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                          Communities (1)                                          Directive 2000/70/EC of the European Parliament and of
                                                                                the Council of 16 November 2000 amending Council
(Appeal — Action for annulment — Action for damages —                              Directive 93/42/EEC as regards medical devices incorpor-
Confirmatory measure — Absence of substantive new facts                            ating stable derivates of human blood or human plas-
       — Inadmissible — Appeal manifestly unfounded)                               ma ( 1) and, in any event, by failing to communicate them
                                                                                to the Commission, the French Republic has failed to
                                                                                fulfil its obligations under that directive;
                          (2003/C 171/12)
                                                                             2.    order the French Republic to pay the costs.
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                            Pleas in law and main arguments
In Case C-170/01 P: Compañía Internacional de Pesca y                        Article 2 of Directive 2000/70/EC provides that Member
Derivados SA (INPESCA), established in Bermeo (Spain),                       States are to adopt and publish the laws, regulations and
(lawyers: M.I. Angulo Fuertes and M.B. Angulo Fuerte) —                      administrative provisions necessary to comply with that
appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of                directive before 13 December 2001 and that they are immedi-
the European Communities (Second Chamber) in Case T-186/                     ately to inform the Commission thereof. The Commission has
98 Inpesca v Commssion [2001] ECR II-557, seeking to have                    no information to enable it to conclude that the French
that judgment set aside, the other party to proceedings being:               authorities have definitively adopted the necessary measures
Commission of the European Communities (agents: S. Pardo                     to implement the directive or, in any event, communicated
Quintillán and J. Guerra Fernández) — the Court (Fourth                      such measures to it and thus finds that the French Republic
Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the                    has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive. The
Chamber, A. La Pergola (rapporteur) and S. Von Bahr, Judges;                 Commission further submits that the French Republic cannot
L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar; has made               rely on the amendment made to Directive 2000/70/EC in
an order on 26 February 2003 by which it:                                    order to justify its failure to transpose it within the prescribed
                                                                             period since the amendment did not affect the deadline for
                                                                             transposition.
1.    Dismisses the appeal;
2.    Orders Compañía Internacional de Pesca y Derivados SA                  (1 ) OJ 2000 L 313, p. 22.
      (INPESCA) to pay the costs.
( 1) OJ C 200, 14.7.2001.
                                                                             Action brought on 14 April 2003 by the Hellenic Republic
                                                                                against the Commission of the European Communities
Action brought on 3 April 2003 by the Commission of
  the European Communities against the French Republic
                                                                                (Case C-175/03)
                          (Case C-155/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 171/14)
                          (2003/C 171/13)
                                                                             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
An action against the French Republic was brought before the                 ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 3 April                      Communities on 14 April 2003 by the Hellenic Republic,


24.5.2003              EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                     C 124/29
—     order the Commission of the European Communities to                        Removal from the register of Case T-77/00 ( 1)
      pay damages to make good the material and non-material
      damage suffered as a result of the decision of 14 August                                    (2003/C 124/50)
      2002 and of the conduct preceding and following
      that decision, such damages having been assessed at                                   (Language of the case: English)
      EUR 25 000;
                                                                         By order of 7 March 2003 the President of the Fifth Chamber
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                              of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                         ordered the removal from the register of Case T-77/00:
                                                                         Esat Telecommunications v Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          (1 ) OJ C 149 of 27.05.2000.
The applicant is challenging the refusal of the appointing
authority to promote him to Grade A 4 in 2002.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-208/02 (1)
                                                                                (2003/C 124/51)
In support of his claims, the applicant alleges:
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
—     breach of the duty to provide reasons;
                                                                         By order of 13 March 2003 the President of the Fourth
—     infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations                Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
      inasmuch as his staff report was better than that of               Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
      another person in his department who was promoted;                 T-208/02: Lene Beier v Europol.
—     breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of               (1 ) OJ C 202 of 24.08.2002.
      officials and of the principle of sound administration;
—     the existence in the present case of a manifest error of
      assessment, abuse of process and/or misuse of powers, as                   Removal from the register of Case T-245/02 (1)
      well as breach of the principle of equal treatment and
      infringement of Article 26 of the Staff Regulations. In                                     (2003/C 124/52)
      that regard, the applicant is of the view that, contrary to
      the principle of equal treatment, he was ranked behind                                 (Language of the case: Dutch)
      an official whose staff report had not been as good as his
      over several years. The explanation provided by his
      immediate superior amounts to misuse of powers and/or              By order of 12 March 2003 the President of the Fourth
      abuse o process, as well as an infringement of Article 26          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
      of the Staff Regulations.                                          Communities ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                         Case T-245/02: Antonia de Jong v Europol.
                                                                         (1 ) OJ C 261 of 26.10.2002.


title: Action brought on 28 October 1997 by Antonio Giannini against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-282/97)

text:
20 . 12 . 97           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 387/25
Action brought on 27 October 1997 by Milk Products                    which, by letter dated 6 August 1997, confirmed the
Holdings ( Europe ) Limited and Others against the                    refusal to disclose key categories of documents.
          Commission of the European Communities
                        ( Case T-281 /97 )                            The applicants state that irrespective of the commercial
                                                                      imperatives which motivated their request, they have a
                          ( 97/C 387/46 )                             legal right under the Code to the documents unless the
                                                                      Commission discharges its burden of demonstrating on the
                                                                      facts that the public-interest exception is applicable . They
                 (Language of the case: English)                      consider that this has not been the case because :
                                                                      — on         the    one    hand,       the     Commission   invokes
An action against the Commission of the European                            international relations as a specific ground for refusal
Communities was brought before the Court of First                           of access under the public-interest exceptions, but
Instance of the European Communities on 27 October                          without giving any substantive explanation as to why
1997 by Milk Products Holdings ( Europe ) Limited and                       or how the disclosure of documents relating to the
Others, represented by Richard McGrane, with an address                     introduction of the criteria in 1981 will have any
for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Andre Marc,                     significant adverse impact on international relations,
56—58 Rue Charles Martel, Luxembourg.                                        and
The applicants claim that the Court should :                          — on the other hand, the Commission claims that
                                                                             disclosure of the documents to one party would
                                                                             interfere with the rights of defence of the other side
                                                                             and would therefore disturb court proceedings, but it
— annul the Commission Decisions of 29 May 1997 and                          does not set out the reasons justifying this assertion .
      6 August 1997 in so far as then relate to the refusal of
      access to the documents requested by the applicants,
                                                                      The applicants conclude therefore that, as a matter of law,
                                                                      the Commission has wholly failed to discharge its burden
— order the Commission to pay the costs of preparing                  of demonstrating that access to the documents could
      the application and these proceedings.                          actually 'undermine ' international relations or court
                                                                      proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   With regard to the ground invoked by the Secretariat
                                                                       General in its decision and relating to the existence of an
                                                                       investigation by the service competent in matters
The applicants explain that the contested decisions arose              concerning fraud into the operation of the New Zealand
as a result of a continuing effort on their part to clarify            butter quota regime over recent years, the applicants stress
the meaning of the criteria to be met by New Zealand                   that this exception was not mentioned by DG I or DG VI,
 butter if it is to be eligible for preferential tariff                with the consequence that the applicants have not had the
 treatments, introduced by Council Regulation No 858/                  opportunity to be heard on this issue in the administrative
 81 ('). The need to clarify the meaning of the criteria and           procedure . In the applicants ' view, this constitutes a
 in particular the phrase 'manufactured directly from milk             breach of the principle of the right to a fair hearing at the
 or cream' arises because the applicants are currently                 administrative stage .
 contesting a claim for retrospective duty from Her
 Majesty's Customs and Excise (' Customs') in the United               (') Council Regulation ( EEC) No 858/81 of 1 April 1981 relating
 Kingdom . It is their case that their products 'Ammix'                     to the import of New Zealand butter into the United Kingdom
 butter and spreadable butter should benefit from the                       on special terms ( OJ L 90 , 4 . 4 . 1981 , p. 18 ).
 preferential tariff arrangements because they are
 manufactured directly from milk or cream . Customs has
 however adopted the opposite position. A test case is
 currently before the relevant English tribunal .
                                                                        Action brought on 28 October 1997 by Antonio Giannini
 In order to clarify the meaning of this phrase by reference               against the Commission of the European Communities
  to the legislative intention of the Community institutions,                                     Case T-282/97)
  the applicants made requests to both DG I and DG VI for
  copies of documents concerning the preparation and                                               ( 97/C 387/47 )
  introduction     of   the     regulation  pursuant    to   the
  Commission 's Code on Public Access to Documents —
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
  Decision 94/90 ( the ' Code '). Both DG VI and DG I
  refused access to the documents by letters dated 29 May
  and 19 June 1997 . The applicants then lodged a request               An action against the Commission of the European
  for review of those decisions with the Secretariat-General,           Communities was brought before the Court of First
 ---pagebreak--- C 387/26             lEN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 20 . 12 . 97
Instance of the European Communities on 28 October                 The applicant also maintains that the contested decisions
1997 by Antonio Giannini, residing in Brussels,                    disregard the principle of the protection of legitimate
represented by Marc Dallemagne and Carlo Locchi, of the            expectations and are vitiated by a misuse of powers.
Brussels Bar, 85 Rue du Prince Royal .
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul :
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case T-396/94 (')
                                                                                ( 97/C 387/48 )
     — the defendant's decision annulling notice COM/
         151/94,                                                                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
     — notice COM/062/97,                                          By order of 3 November 1997 the President of the First
                                                                   Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First
                                                                   Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
     — the defendant's decision No 4732 of 24 July 1997            removal from the register of Case T-396/94 : Centrale
         rejecting the complaint, which was notified to the        Bewerkingseenheid ( CBE) v. Commission of the European
         applicant on 30 July 1997,                                Communities .
                                                                   (') OJ C 392 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .
— order the defendant to :
     — pay the applicant the difference between his salary
         and the salary improperly paid to the candidate
         appointed to the post in issue, by way of
         compensation for the non-material damage                          Removal from the register of Case T-23/97 (')
         suffered by him since the unlawful appointment of                                        97/C 387/49 )
         the latter,
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
     — pay the applicant the difference between his
         current salary and the salary which he would have
         received in grade A3 since 28 April 1995 , by way         By order of 3 November 1997 the President of the Second
         of compensation for the material damage suffered           Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First
         by him,                                                   Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                    removal from the register of Case T-23/97: AEVP —
                                                                    Associa^ao das Empresas de Vinho do Porto v.
      — pay all of the costs.                                       Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                    (') OJ C 131 , 26 . 4 . 1997.
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 The applicant contests the decisions taken by the
 defendant, in consequence of the judgment delivered by
 the Court of First Instance on 19 March 1997 in Case
 T-21/96 Giannini v. Commission, to annul vacancy notice                    Removal from the register of Case T-87/97 (')
 COM/151 /94, issued with a view to filling the post of                                          ( 97/C 387/50 )
 Head of Unit DG I/D/ l 'Negotiation and management of
 textile agreements; footwear and other industries', and to
 publish a new vacancy notice COM/062/97 in relation to                              (Language of the case: Dutch)
 the same post.
                                                                     By order of 3 November 1997 the President of the First
                                                                     Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
 Fie considers that the arguments advanced by the                    Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
 defendant to justify the formulation of a fresh notice              Case T-87/97: Gustaaf van Dyck v. Commission of the
 corresponding to the same post are incorrect, and asserts           European Communities.
 that to seek to remove the defects which vitiated the
  notice annulled by the Court by adopting an act which,
                                                                     (') OJ C 166 , 31 . 5 . 1997.
  although in a new form, is vitiated by the same defects,
  amounts to an attempt to circumvent the spirit of the
  Court's judgment .


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 March 2002 in Case T-139/00: Laurent Bal v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Internal competition — Non-admission to the competition — Professional experience required)

text:
C 131/16               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                           1.6.2002
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                of: R.M. Moura Ramos, President of the Chamber, J. Pirrung
                                                                           and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for
                        of 6 March 2002                                    the Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 March 2002, in
                                                                           which it:
in Case T-77/99 REV: Girish Ojha v Commission of the
                   European Communities (1)                                1.    Annuls the decision of the selection board of 24 February 2000
                                                                                not to admit the applicant to the tests of internal competition
                                                                                COM/TB/99;
(Officials — Application for revision of a judgment — New
                 fact — None — Inadmissible)
                                                                           2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
                         (2002/C 131/29)                                   3.    Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           (1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.
In Case T-77/99 REV: Girish Ojha, official of the Commission
of the European Communities, residing in Korbeek-Lo
(Belgium), represented by A. Ottati, lawyer, v Commission of
the European Communities (Agent: C. Berardis-Kayser) —
application for revision of the judgment of the Court of First
Instance of 6 March 2001 in Case T-77/99 Ojha v Commission                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
[2001] ECR-SC I-A-61 and II-293 — the Court of First
Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: M. Vilaras, President                                      of 13 March 2002
of the Chamber, V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 March 2002, in which it:
                                                                           in Joined Cases T-357/00, T-361/00, T-363/00 and T-364/
                                                                           00: Justina Martı́nez Alarcón and Others v Commission
1.    Dismisses the application for revision as inadmissible;
                                                                                of the European Communities (1)
2.    Orders the applicant for revision to pay the costs.
                                                                           (Officials — Internal competition — Non-admission to
                                                                                competition — Requisite professional experience)
(1) OJ C 174 of 19.6.1999.
                                                                                (2002/C 131/31)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                           In Case T-Joined Cases T-357/00, T-361/00, T-363/00 and
                        of 13 March 2002                                   T-364/00: Justina Martı́nez Alarcón, Antonio Cherenti, Luigia
                                                                           Dricot, Sophie Van Weyenbergh, officials of the Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities, residing in Thuin (Belgium),
in Case T-139/00: Laurent Bal v Commission of the                          Overijse (Belgium) and Tervuren (Belgium), represented by
                   European Communities (1)                                C. Mourato, avocat, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
                                                                           against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
(Officials — Internal competition — Non-admission to the                   H. Tserepa-Lacombe and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart) — appli-
       competition — Professional experience required)                     cation for annulment of decisions rejecting the applicants’
                                                                           candidature for internal competition COM/TB/99 — the Court
                                                                           of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of R.M. Moura
                         (2002/C 131/30)
                                                                           Ramos, President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; D. Chris-
                                                                           tensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on
                   (Language of the case: French)                          13 March 2002, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                           In Case T-364/00:
In Case T-139/00: Laurent Bal, residing in Walhain (Belgium),
represented by I. Cooreman and T. Delvaux, lawyers, v                      1.    The decision of the selection board of 28 January 2000
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: J. Currall)                       rejecting Ms Van Weyenbergh’s application to internal compe-
— application inter alia for annulment of the decision rejecting                 tition COM/TB/99 and the decision of the appointing authority
the applicant’s candidacy for internal competition COM/TB/                       of 9 October 2000 rejecting the complaint lodged by the
99 — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed                      applicant are annulled.


title: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 September 2000 in Case C-341/97: Commission of the European Communities v the Kingdom of the Netherlands (Failure to fulfil obligations — Failure to give proper notice — Inadmissibility of the action)

text:
9.12.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 355/5
1.    Declares that Commission Decision 1999/509/EC of                     1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
      14 October 1998 concerning aid granted by Spain to
      companies in the Magefesa group and their successors is
                                                                           2.    The Commission of the European Communities is ordered to
      annulled in so far as it includes in the amount of aid to be
                                                                                pay the costs.
      recovered interest falling due after Indosa and Cunosa were
      declared insolvent on aid unlawfully received before that
      declaration;                                                         3.    The French Republic shall bear its own costs.
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
                                                                           (1) OJ C 357 of 22.11.1997.
3.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay, in addition to its own
      costs, three quarters of the costs of the Commission of the
      European Communities.
(1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.
                                                                           Request by the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties for an Opinion pursuant to Article 300(6) of the EC
                                                                                Treaty
                    ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Opinion 1/00)
                          (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                (2000/C 355/09)
                      of 13 September 2000
                                                                           By an application made by the Commission of the European
in Case C-341/97: Commission of the European Communi-                      Communities, represented by Frank Benyon and Marie-José
           ties v the Kingdom of the Netherlands (1)                       Jonczy, Legal Advisers, acting as Agents, received at the Court
                                                                           Registry on 13 October 2000, the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities has been asked to deliver an Opinion
(Failure to fulfil obligations — Failure to give proper notice             pursuant to Article 300(6) of the EC Treaty.
                 — Inadmissibility of the action)
                          (2000/C 355/08)                                  The Commission of the European Communities asks the Court
                                                                           of Justice to deliver an Opinion on the compatibility with the
                                                                           provisions of the EC Treaty of the draft Agreement establishing
                                                                           a European Common Aviation Area to be concluded between
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                          the Republic of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, the Republic of
                                                                           Estonia, the European Community, the Republic of Hungary,
                                                                           Iceland, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     Kingdom of Norway, the Republic of Poland, Romania, the
                   in the European Court Reports)                          Slovak Republic and the Republic of Slovenia, in particular on
                                                                           the question whether
In Case C-341/97: Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: H. van Vliet), supported by French Republic (Agent:                (i)   draft Article 23(2), which gives the option to Contracting
K. Rispal-Bellanger), Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agent:                         Parties to decide whether their courts should refer
M.A. Fierstra) — application for a declaration that, by adopting                 questions of interpretation to the Court of Justice, and
on 16 December 1992 the Regulation for the prevention of
the introduction of foreign toxic dinoflagellata, the Kingdom              (ii) draft Article 23(3), which gives to the Joint Committee the
of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under                    final responsibility for the homogeneous interpretation of
Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,                       the Agreement,
Articles 28 and 30 EC) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed
of L. Sevón, President of the First Chamber, acting for the
President of the Fifth Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn, P. Jann,                   are satisfactory in this respect.
H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), Judges;
G. Cosmas, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator,
subsequently R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 13 Septem-
ber 2000, the operative part of which is as follows:


title: Case C-593/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria) lodged on 23 November 2016 — Admiral Casinos & Entertainment AG v Alexander Holiczky

text:
               3.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/24

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria) lodged on 23 November 2016 — Admiral Casinos & Entertainment AG v Alexander Holiczky
   (Case C-593/16)
   (2017/C 104/36)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landesgericht Korneuburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Admiral Casinos & Entertainment AG

      Defendant: Alexander Holiczky
   By order of 7 February 2017, this case was removed from the Register of the Court of Justice.


title: Case C-388/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) made on 9 August 2007 — The Queen on the application of the Incorporated Trustees of the National Council for Ageing (Age Concern England), v Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform

text:
               24.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) made on 9 August 2007 — The Queen on the application of the Incorporated Trustees of the National Council for Ageing (Age Concern England), v Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform
   (Case C-388/07)
   (2007/C 283/16)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: The Incorporated Trustees of the National Council for Ageing (Age Concern England)

      Defendant: Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform
   Questions referred
   In relation to Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000, establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (1) (‘the Directive’):
   1.   National retirement ages and the scope of the Directive

               (i)

               Does the scope of the Directive extend to national rules which permit employers to dismiss employees aged 65 or over by reason of retirement?

               (ii)

               Does the scope of the Directive extend to national rules which permit employers to dismiss employees aged 65 or over by reason of retirement where they were introduced after the Directive was made?

               (iii)

               In the light of the answers to (i) and (ii) above

                           (1)

                           were section 109 and/or 156 of the 1996 Act, and/or

                           (2)

                           are Regulations 30 and 7, when read with Schedules 8 and 6 to the Regulations, national provisions laying down retirement ages within the meaning of Recital 14?

         2.   The definition of direct age discrimination: justification defence

               iv)

               Does Article 6(1) of the Directive permit Member States to introduce legislation providing that a difference of treatment on grounds of age does not constitute discrimination if it is determined to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, or does Article 6(1) require Member States to define the kinds of differences of treatment which may be so justified, by a list or other measure which is similar in form and content to Article 6(1)?

         3.   The test for the justification of direct and indirect discrimination

               (v)

               Is there any, and if so what, significant practical difference between the test for justification set out in Article 2(2) of the Directive in relation to indirect discrimination, and the test for justification set out in relation to direct age discrimination at Article 6(1) of the Directive?

      (1)  OJ L 303, p. 16.


title: Case C-209/16 P: Appeal brought on 14 April 2016 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 February 2016 in Case T-620/11 GFKL Financial Services AG v European Commission

text:
               20.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 222/6

         Appeal brought on 14 April 2016 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 February 2016 in Case T-620/11 GFKL Financial Services AG v European Commission

   (Case C-209/16 P)
   (2016/C 222/07)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and R. Kanitz, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: GFKL Financial Services AG, European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 4 February 2016 in Case T-620/11 in so far as it dismissed the action as unfounded;

               —

               annul Commission Decision of 26 January 2011, C(2011)275 final, in State aid case C 7/10 — Scheme for the carry-forward of tax losses in the case of restructuring of companies in difficulty (Sanierungsklausel), under Article 61(1) of the Statute of the Court of Justice;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   In support of its appeal, the appellant relies on one ground of appeal.
   There has been an infringement of the first paragraph of Article 107 TFEU. The General Court disregarded the fact that Paragraph 8c(1a) of the Körperschaftsteuergesetz (Law on corporation tax; ‘the KStG’), the ‘restructuring clause’, is not selective:

               —

               The ‘restructuring clause’ is not a priori selective, since it does not provide for any derogation from the relevant system of reference and is a general provision capable of benefiting any undertaking in the territory of the Member State.

               —

               The ‘restructuring clause’ is also justified by the nature and inner logic of the tax system. The restructuring clause is justified, first, by the principle of taxation according to economic ability to pay, second, by the objective of tackling abuse, namely in preventing abusive structuring, and, third, by the objective differences between a harmful acquisition of a shareholding and an acquisition of a shareholding for the purposes of restructuring.


title: Case T-62/14: Order of the General Court of 21 January 2016 — BR IP Holder v OHIM — Greyleg Investments (HOKEY POKEY) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark HOKEY POKEY — Unregistered earlier national word mark — Proof of use — Right to prohibit use of the mark sought — Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Right of a Member State — Obligation to state reasons — Raised by the Court of its own motion)

text:
               7.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/15

         Order of the General Court of 21 January 2016 — BR IP Holder v OHIM — Greyleg Investments (HOKEY POKEY)
   (Case T-62/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark HOKEY POKEY - Unregistered earlier national word mark - Proof of use - Right to prohibit use of the mark sought - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Right of a Member State - Obligation to state reasons - Raised by the Court of its own motion))
   (2016/C 090/20)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: BR IP Holder LLC (Canton, Massachusetts, United States) (represented by: F. Traub, lawyer and C. Rohsler, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Greyleg Investments Ltd (Baltonsborough, United Kingdom)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 November 2013 (Case R 1091/2012-4) relating to opposition proceedings between BR IP Holder LLC and Greyleg Investments Ltd.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 22 November 2013 (Case R 1091/2012-4).

               2.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by BR IP Holder LLC.

      (1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 7 June 2001 in Case T-202/00: Mario Costacurta v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Re-assignment of the applicant to a third country in 1993 — Reintegration of the official in the Publications Office in 1996 — Loss of entitlement to the derogating provisions of Annex X to the Staff Regulations — Request to be reassigned to a third State submitted in 2000 on the basis of Annex X — Manifest inadmissibility of the action directed against the Commission's replies)

text:
C 275/10                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      29.9.2001
                                                          COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 Action brought on 22 May 2001 by Ursula Klug against
                                                                                the Council of the European Union
                                                                                (Case T-112/01)
                           of 7 June 2001
                                                                                (2001/C 275/22)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
in Case T-202/00: Mario Costacurta v Commission of the
                    European Communities (1)
                                                                           An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                           brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                           Communities on 22 May 2001 by Ursula Klug, residing in
(Officials — Re-assignment of the applicant to a third                     Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis and Véronique Peere,
country in 1993 — Reintegration of the official in the                     avocats, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
Publications Office in 1996 — Loss of entitlement to the
derogating provisions of Annex X to the Staff Regulations                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
— Request to be reassigned to a third State submitted in
2000 on the basis of Annex X — Manifest inadmissibility                    —     annul the decision definitively establishing her staff report
   of the action directed against the Commission’s replies)                      for the period 1997-1999;
                                                                           —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                          (2001/C 275/21)
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           The applicant in the present case contests certain assessments
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           contained in her staff report for the period 1997-1999.
                                                                           In support of her claim, she pleads:
In Case T-202/00: Mario Costacurta, an official of the Com-
mission of the European Communities, residing in Luxem-                    —     breach of the staff report procedure as laid down in the
bourg, represented by M. Petit, lawyer, with an address for                      guidelines for staff reports published on 28 July 1989;
service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European
                                                                           —     a manifest error in the present case, resulting from
Communities (Agents: G. Valsesia and J. Currall) — application
for annulment directed, first, against the measure contained in                  confusion between sick leave and absenteeism, as regards
                                                                                the assessments appearing under the heading ‘Consistency
one of the letters from the Director of the Publications Office
                                                                                of performance’.
sent to the applicant in reply to his request to be reassigned to
a third State, dated 6 June 2000, and, secondly, against the
implied rejection of the applicant’s complaint of 21 July 2000
— the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of
A.W.H. Meij, President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges;
H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 7 June 2001, the
operative part of which is as follows:                                     Action brought on 18 June 2001 by Giorgio Fedon & Figli
                                                                           S.p.A, Fedon S.r.l. and Fedon America USA Inc. against
                                                                           the Commission of the European Communities and the
                                                                                Council of the European Union
1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
                                                                                (Case T-135/01)
2.    The applicant shall bear all the costs, including those relating                              (2001/C 275/23)
      to the interlocutory proceedings.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
(1) OJ 2000 C 285.
                                                                           ties and the Council of the European Union was brought
                                                                           before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                           on 18 June 2001 by Giorgio Fedon & Figli S.p.A, Fedon S.r.l.
                                                                           and Fedon America USA Inc., represented by I. van Bael,
                                                                           A. Cevese and F. Di Gianni, Avvocati.


title: Case T-41/05: Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2011 — Alliance One International v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Spanish market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Price-fixing and market-sharing — Fines — Attributability of the unlawful conduct — Maximum limit of 10 % of turnover — Deterrent effect — Attenuating circumstances)

text:
               26.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2011 — Alliance One International v Commission
   (Case T-41/05) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Spanish market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price-fixing and market-sharing - Fines - Attributability of the unlawful conduct - Maximum limit of 10 % of turnover - Deterrent effect - Attenuating circumstances)
   2011/C 347/38
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Alliance One International Inc., formerly Dimon Inc. (Danville, Virginia, United States) (represented initially by L. Bergkamp, H. Cogels, J. Dhont, M. Marañon Hermoso and A. Emch, and subsequently by M. Odriozola Alén, J. Folguera Crespo, P. Vidal Martínez, M. Barrantes Diaz and A. João Vide, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by É. Gippini Fournier and F. Amato, and subsequently by É. Gippini Fournier, N. Khan and J. Bourke, Agents)

      Re:

   APPLICATION for the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2004) 4030 final of 20 October 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) [EC] (Case COMP/C.38.238/B.2 — Raw tobacco — Spain) and, in the alternative, for a reduction in the fine imposed on the applicant in that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets the part of the fine imposed on Agroexpansión, SA in Article 3 of Commission Decision C(2004) 4030 final of 20 October 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) [EC] (Case COMP/C.38.238/B.2 — Raw tobacco — Spain), for the payment of which Alliance One International, Inc. is held jointly and severally liable with Agroexpansión, at EUR 2 187 000;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders Alliance One International to bear nine tenths of its own costs and to pay nine tenths of the costs incurred by the European Commission, and the Commission to bear one tenth of its own costs and to pay one tenth of those incurred by Alliance One International.

      (1)  OJ C 93, 16.4.2005.


title: Action brought on 10 May 1996 by Augusto Fichtner against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-63/96)

text:
 10 . 8 . 96            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 233/9
 Action brought on 10 May 1996 by Augusto Fichtner                      — infringement and erroneous application of Articles 43 et
   against the Commission of the European Communities                       seq. of the Staff Regulations ,
                          ( Case T-63 /96 )
                                                                        — breach of an essential procedural requirement,
                            ( 96/C 233/ 17 )
                                                                        — misuse of powes inasmuch as the facts were distorted,
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                            and
                                                                        — misuse of powers inasmuch as the statement of reasons is
 An action against the Commission of the European                           defective, illogical and contradictory.
 Communities was brought before the Court of First
 Instance of the European Communities on 10 May 1996 by
 Augusto Fichtner, an official at the Joint Research Centre at
 Ispra , residing at Varese, represented by Vincenzo Salvatore ,
 of the Pavia Bar, with an address for service in Varese at 6
 Via Orrigoni .
                                                                        Action brought on 10 May 1996 by Filippo de Jorio against
 The applicant claims that the Court should :                                       the Council of the European Union
                                                                                ( Case T-64/96 )
 — annul the decision of the Commission of 12 February                                            ( 96/C 233/ 18 )
     1996 rejecting the applicant's complaint No 67/95
     against his immediate superior's assessments in his staff
     report for the period 1991 to 1993 ,                                              (Language of the case: Italian)
 — order the Commission to compensate the applicant for                 An action against the Council of the European Union was
     the material and non-material damage suffered by him               brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
     as a result of the conduct complained of in such an                Communities on 1 0 May 1 996 by Filippo de Jorio, member
     amount as the Court may deem fair,                                 of the Economic and Social Committee of the European
                                                                        Union, represented and defenced by Lucio Filippo Longo,
                                                                        Avvocato and Procuratore in Rome, with an address for
— order the unsuccessful party to pay the costs .
                                                                        service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt,
                                                                        8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt .
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant, an official in Grade B 4, who has been
working at the Joint Research Centre at Ispra since 2 May              The applicant, who is a member of the Economic and Social
 1967, points out that he has always carried out the duties             Committee ( ESC ), points out that Article 194 of the EC
relating to his post with professionalism and competence, as           Treaty provides that 'the members of the ( Economic and
amply demonstrated by the favourable assessments made in               Social ) Committee may not be bound by any mandatory
his staff reports until 1989 by the then Director . He states          instructions; they shall be completely independent in the
that the appointment of the successor to that Director was             performance of their duties, in the general interest of the
followed immediately by manifestly discriminatory                      Community ' and that ' the Council , acting by a qualified
attitudes and conduct detrimental to the applicant, resulting          majority , shall determine the allowances of members of the
in his gradual marginalization by means of allocating to him           Committee '. The applicant therefore maintains that, by not
wholly inappropriate duties with regard to his grade and the           determining the allowances in that manner, as provided by
professional qualifications he had in the meantime acquired .          the EC Treaty, the Council has infringed a clear provision of
Moreover, the applicant's numerous operational and                     Article 194 , as cited above, because members of the ESC
organizational proposals, which were regularly submitted               currently have no duty or service allowance ( by contrast
to his immediate superior, were essentially disregarded . His          with all other Community appointments ) and receive only a
staff report became gradually and unjustifiably worse to the           flat-rate reimbursement of expenses, which is totally
point that the report relating to the period 1 July 1991 to            inappropriate to the nature of the duties with which they are
30 June 1993 , which represents possibly the strongest                 entrusted and insufficient, moreover, to cover the expenses
expression, at least in documentary form, of the ostracism             actually incurred on each visit to Brussels .
referred to above, is particularly characterized by a number
of untrue statements and assessments which seriously harm              The applicant submits that when , in its provisions
the prestige and dignity of the official concerned , without           concerning the ESC, the Treaty lays down that ESC
their being in the least supported by any evidence but                 members may not be bound by any mandatory instructions,
characterized in particular by bald affirmations and a failure         its intention is indisputedly to affirm the principle that
to state reasons .
                                                                       members of the ESC exercise judgment independently and
                                                                       autonomously . Since, in order to carry out their task ,
On the basis of the foregoing the applicant claims that the            members of the ESC have a duty to act in accordance with
report relating to the period 1991 to 1993 is unlawful on the          their own convictions , which may lead them to maintain
following grounds:                                                     positions at variance with those adopted by the


title: Case C-109/15 P: Appeal brought on 4 March 2015 by Marinos Nikolaou against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 16 October 2014 in Case T-331/13 Marinos Nikolaou v Commission and European Central Bank

text:
               1.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/6

         Appeal brought on 4 March 2015 by Marinos Nikolaou against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 16 October 2014 in Case T-331/13 Marinos Nikolaou v Commission and European Central Bank

   (Case C-109/15 P)
   (2015/C 178/06)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Appellant: Marinos Nikolaou (represented by: E. Efstathiou, K. Efstathiou and K. Liasidou, dikigori)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission and European Central Bank

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the order under appeal;

               —

               set aside the finding of the General Court that the objection of inadmissibility should be upheld and in particular the finding that ‘statements of the Eurogroup cannot be considered to be acts intended to produce legal effects vis-à-vis third parties’ and consequently vis-à-vis the appellant, and that by the contested statement the Eurogroup ‘gave an account in very general terms of certain measures which were agreed at a political level with the Republic of Cyprus’;

               —

               set aside the order under appeal which attributed the impairment of bank deposits to the Republic of Cyprus and failed to attribute any conduct or act or decision whatsoever either to the Eurogroup or to the defendants or to the defendants within the Eurogroup;

               —

               set aside the order that the appellant should pay the costs.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The appellant relies on four grounds in support of the appeal. Specifically:

               —

               The order under appeal is vitiated by a defective statement of reasons and was made on the basis of a misinterpretation of the facts and the law in relation to the identity of the body which actually and in reality made the decision on the ‘bail in’ impairment of bank deposits.

               —

               The order under appeal was made contrary to general principles of law in that the General Court misinterpreted the fact that, irrespective of the shape or form taken by the Eurogroup’s contested decision, that decision was in this case an act against which an appeal could be brought.

               —

               The order under appeal is in error in that the General Court for the making of the order failed to examine the legal and actual association of the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the Eurogroup and also failed to examine the fact that, on the basis of the principle of legal causation and the true author test, the acts of the Eurogroup constituted acts of the European Central Bank and the European Commission, which ought to have acted in a way compatible with the Treaty and the Protocols of the European Union and on the basis of secondary and derivative law.
               In consequence, the General Court failed to examine the substance of the appellant’s arguments and case, and thus erred in dismissing the action for annulment.

               —

               In the event that this appeal is upheld, the appellant should not be ordered to pay the costs of this appeal or of the proceedings at first instance.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 October 2001 in Case C-403/99: Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities (Common agricultural policy — Agrimonetary system for the euro — Transitional measures for the introduction of the euro)

text:
C 317/4                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       10.11.2001
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 20 September 2001
                         (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                           in Case C-453/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                           the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)):
                        of 4 October 2001                                  Courage Ltd v Bernard Crehan and Bernard Crehan v
                                                                                Courage Ltd and Others (1)
in Case C-403/99: Italian Republic v Commission of the                     (Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC) — Beer tie
                   European Communities (1)                                — Leasing of public houses — Restrictive agreement —
                                                                                Right to damages of a party to the contract)
(Common agricultural policy — Agrimonetary system for                                                 (2001/C 317/07)
the euro — Transitional measures for the introduction of the
                                euro)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                          (2001/C 317/06)                                  In Case C-453/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                                                                           the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Court of Appeal
                                                                           (England and Wales) (Civil Division), (United Kingdom) for a
                                                                           preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                        court between Courage Ltd and Bernard Crehan and between
                                                                           Bernard Crehan and Courage Ltd and Others — on the
                                                                           interpretation of Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81
                                                                           EC) and other provisions of Community law — the Court,
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann,
                   in the European Court Reports)                          M. Wathelet (Rapporteur) and V. Skouris (Presidents of Cham-
                                                                           bers), D.A.O. Edward; P. Jann, L. Sevón, F. Macken and
                                                                           N. Colneric, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and C.W.A. Timmermans,
                                                                           Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator,
In Case C-403/99: Italian Republic (Agent: U. Leanza assisted              for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 September
by D. Del Gaizo) v Commission of the European Communities                  2001, in which it has ruled:
(Agent: F. Ruggeri Laderchi) — application for the annulment
of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1639/1999 of 26 July
1999 fixing the maximum compensatory aid resulting from                    1.    A party to a contract liable to restrict or distort competition
the rates for the conversion of the euro into national currency                  within the meaning of Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now
units and the exchange rates applicable on 1 July 1999 (OJ                       Article 81 EC) can rely on the breach of that provision to
1999 L 194, p. 33) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed                         obtain relief from the other contracting party.
of: A. La Pergola, President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward,
P. Jann (Rapporteur), S. von Bahr and C.W.A. Timmermans,
Judges; D. Ruı́z-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,              2.    Article 85 of the Treaty precludes a rule of national law under
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment                 which a party to a contract liable to restrict or distort
on 4 October 2001, in which it:                                                  competition within the meaning of that provision is barred from
                                                                                claiming damages for loss caused by performance of that
                                                                                contract on the sole ground that the claimant is a party to that
                                                                                contract.
1.    Dismisses the application;
                                                                           3.    Community law does not preclude a rule of national law barring
                                                                                a party to a contract liable to restrict or distort competition
2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                              from relying on his own unlawful actions to obtain damages
                                                                                where it is established that that party bears significant
                                                                                responsibility for the distortion of competition.
(1) OJ C 366 of 18.12.1999.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.