title: Case C-437/04: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities — Buildings leased by the Communities — Region of Brussels Capital — Tax on owners)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/6

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-437/04) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities - Buildings leased by the Communities - Region of Brussels Capital - Tax on owners)
   (2007/C 96/08)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J.-F. Pasquier, Agent)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: E. Dominkovits, Agent)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Council of the European Union (represented by: G. Maganza and A.-M. Colaert, Agents)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 3 of the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities of 8 April 1965, exempting the Communities, their assets, revenues and other property from all direct taxes — National provision imposing a tax on owners of buildings subject to business occupancy in the Region of Brussels Capital the surface area of which exceeds a certain threshold — Charge actually falling on the Communities, as lessee, either because of stipulations in the leases, or because it is simply passed on in the amount of the rent
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 300, 4.12.2004.


title: Case T-86/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 2007 — K & L Ruppert Stiftung v OHIM — Lopes de Almeida Cunha and Others (CORPO livre) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the figurative mark CORPO LIVRE — National and international word marks LIVRE — Proof of use of the earlier marks submitted out of time)

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/40

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 2007 — K & L Ruppert Stiftung v OHIM — Lopes de Almeida Cunha and Others (CORPO livre)
   (Case T-86/05) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the figurative mark CORPO LIVRE - National and international word marks LIVRE - Proof of use of the earlier marks submitted out of time)
   (2008/C 22/74)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: K & L Ruppert Stiftung & Co. Handels-KG (Weilheim, Germany) (represented by: D. Spohn and A. Kockläuner, lawyers)

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

      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Natália Cristina Lopes de Almeida Cunha (Vila Nova de Gaia, Portugal); Cláudia Couto Simões, (Vila Nova de Gaia); and Marly Lima Jatobá (Vila Nova de Gaia)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 December 2004 (Case R 328/2004-1), relating to opposition proceedings between K & L Ruppert Stiftung & Co. Handels-KG and Natália Cristina Lopes de Almeida Cunha, Cláudia Couto Simões and Marly Lima Jatobá
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

                  Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant, K & L Ruppert Stiftung & Co. Handels-KG, to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 155, 25.6.2005.


title: Case T-60/08 P: Appeal brought on 12 January 2009 by Georgi Kerelov against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 29 November 2007 in Case F-19/07 Kerelov v Commission

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/39

         Appeal brought on 12 January 2009 by Georgi Kerelov against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 29 November 2007 in Case F-19/07 Kerelov v Commission
   (Case T-60/08 P)
   (2009/C 69/91)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Georgi Kerelov (Pazardzhik, Bulgaria) (represented by A. Kerelov, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               Annul the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal of 29 November 2007 in Case F-19/07 Kerelov v Commission;

               —

               admit the pleadings submitted by the appellant at first instance;

               —

               order the respondent to pay all the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the present appeal, the appellant seeks annulment of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) of 29 November 2007 delivered in Case F-19/07 Kerelov v Commission, dismissing the action by which the appellant sought, on the one hand, annulment of the decisions of the selection board of open competition EPSO/AD/43/06 not to include him on the reserve list of that competition and to exclude him therefrom, and, on the other, damages in compensation for the loss allegedly suffered.
   In support of his appeal, the appellant relies on ten pleas in law, alleging:

               —

               breach of the principles governing the administrative procedure with regard to proof, since the CST reversed the burden of proof;

               —

               breach of the principle of an adversarial process, since the CST did not give the appellant sufficient time to take a position on the new documents added to the file;

               —

               breach of the principle of the public nature of the proceedings, since the CST did not hold a fresh hearing following the lodging of new documents;

               —

               breach of the duty of impartiality, since the CST did not take the steps necessary to examine the file;

               —

               an error in law, since the CST held that the selection board, not the Director of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO), has the power to exclude a candidate;

               —

               an error in law, since the CST considered that prohibition on contact between competition candidates and members of the selection board ends upon publication of the reserve list in the Official Journal of the European Union, and not when the selection board completes its work;

               —

               breach of the relevant principles of administrative law by confirming the decision of the selection board of 2 February 2007 to exclude the appellant from the competition, since:

                           —

                           the original version of that decision was not added to the file;

                           —

                           that decision does not contain factual grounds sufficiently precise for its addressee to be aware of the exact facts on which it was based; and

                           —

                           the selection board did not invite the appellant to give an explanation for the facts on the basis of which his candidature was rejected, that is to say, the sending of two emails to the selection board;

               —

               the need, of its own motion, to check for any other breach of the applicable rules of law which the CST may have committed.


title: Case C-425/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 31 August 2010 — Barbara Szeja, Maria-Magdalena Szeja, Marlon Szeja v Land Berlin

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 31 August 2010 — Barbara Szeja, Maria-Magdalena Szeja, Marlon Szeja v Land Berlin
   (Case C-425/10)
   ()
   2010/C 301/19
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Barbara Szeja, Maria-Magdalena Szeja, Marlon Szeja

      Defendant: Land Berlin

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the first sentence of Article 16(1) of Directive 2004/38/EC (1) to be interpreted as conferring on Union citizens who have resided legally for more than five years on the basis only of national law in the territory of a Member State, but who did not during that period fulfil the conditions laid down in Article 7(1) of Directive 2004/38/EC, a right of permanent residence in that Member State?

               2.

               Are periods of residence of Union citizens in the host Member State which took place before the accession of their Member State of origin to the European Union also to be counted towards the period of lawful residence under Article 16(1) of Directive 2004/38/EC?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77.


title: Case C-422/13: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Landesamt für Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und ländliche Räume des Landes Schleswig-Holstein v Uta Wree (References for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Single payment scheme — Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 — Article 34(2)(a) — Concept of ‘area eligible for aid’ — Concept of ‘agricultural area’ — Area forming restored cover layer of a landfill site in after-care — Use for agricultural activities — Lawfulness)

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/3

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Landesamt für Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und ländliche Räume des Landes Schleswig-Holstein v Uta Wree
   (Case C-422/13) (1)

   ((References for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Common agricultural policy - Single payment scheme - Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 - Article 34(2)(a) - Concept of ‘area eligible for aid’ - Concept of ‘agricultural area’ - Area forming restored cover layer of a landfill site in after-care - Use for agricultural activities - Lawfulness))
   (2015/C 294/03)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberverwaltungsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Landesamt für Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und ländliche Räume des Landes Schleswig-Holstein

      Defendant: Uta Wree

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 34(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that an area which forms the cover layer of a landfill site in after-care constitutes an agricultural area within the meaning of that provision when it is actually used for permanent pasture.

      (1)  OJ C 304, 19.10.2013.


title: Case C-285/14: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 4 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France)) — Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Directeur régional des douanes et droits indirects d’Auvergne v Brasserie Bouquet SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Directive 92/83/EEC — Excise duty — Beer — Article 4 — Small independent breweries — Reduced rate of excise duty — Conditions — No operation under licence — Production in accordance with a process of a third party and authorised by it — Authorisation to use the trade marks of that third party)

text:
               20.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/18

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 4 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France)) — Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Directeur régional des douanes et droits indirects d’Auvergne v Brasserie Bouquet SA
   (Case C-285/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Directive 92/83/EEC - Excise duty - Beer - Article 4 - Small independent breweries - Reduced rate of excise duty - Conditions - No operation under licence - Production in accordance with a process of a third party and authorised by it - Authorisation to use the trade marks of that third party))
   (2015/C 236/25)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Directeur régional des douanes et droits indirects d’Auvergne

      Defendant: Brasserie Bouquet SA

      Operative part of the judgment

   For the purpose of applying the reduced rate of excise duty on beer the condition laid down in Article 4(2) of Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages according to which a brewery must not operate under licence, is not met if the brewery concerned makes its beer in accordance with an agreement pursuant to which it is authorised to use the trade marks and production process of a third party.

      (1)  OJ C 261, 11.8.2014.


title: Case T-543/15: Order of the General Court of 12 October 2016 — Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann and Others v ECHA (Actions for annulment — Inclusion as supplier of an active substance on the list provided for in Article 95 of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               5.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 454/25

      Order of the General Court of 12 October 2016 — Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann and Others v ECHA
      (Case T-543/15) (1)

      ((Actions for annulment - Inclusion as supplier of an active substance on the list provided for in Article 95 of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility))
      (2016/C 454/45)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

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

         Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (represented by: C. Buchanan, W. Broere and M. Heikkilä, acting as Agents, and by P. Oliver, Barrister)

         Re:

      Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the decision of ECHA of 17 June 2015 concerning the inclusion of the company Oxea GmbH, established in Germany, as supplier of an active substance on the list referred to in Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products (OJ 2012 L 167, p. 1).

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

                  2.

                  There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene of Oxea GmbH and BASF SE.

                  3.

                  Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann GmbH, Ecolab Deutschland GmbH, Schülke & Mayr GmbH and Diversey Europe Operations BV shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) except for those relating to the applications for leave to intervene.

                  4.

                  Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann, Ecolab Deutschland, Schülke & Mayr, Diversey Europe Operations, ECHA, Oxea and BASF shall each bear its own costs relating to the applications for leave to intervene.

         (1)  OJ C 406, 7.12.2015.


title: Case T-486/12: Judgment of the General Court of 11 June 2014  — Golam v OHIM — Pentafarma (METABOL) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark METABOL — Earlier national word mark METABOL-MG — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               28.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/11

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 June 2014 — Golam v OHIM — Pentafarma (METABOL)
   (Case T-486/12) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark METABOL - Earlier national word mark METABOL-MG - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2014/C 245/15
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sofia Golam (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Trovas, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Pentafarma-Sociedade Tecnico-Medicinal, SA (Prior Velho, Portugal)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 July 2012 (Case R 1901/2011-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Pentafarma-Sociedade Tecnico-Medicinal, SA and Ms Sofia Golam

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Ms Sofia Golam to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 9, 12.1.2013.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 January 2003 in Case C-12/00: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Free movement of goods — Directive 73/241/EEC — Cocoa and chocolate products containing fats other than cocoa butter — Products lawfully manufactured and marketed in the Member State of production under the sales name "chocolate" — Prohibition on marketing under that name in the Member State of marketing)

text:
C 44/2                  EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                             22.2.2003
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                         (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 16 January 2003
                        of 16 January 2003                                  in Case C-12/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Kingdom of Spain (1)
in Case C-398/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                   (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Free
the VAT and Duties Tribunal, Manchester): Yorkshire Co-                     movement of goods — Directive 73/241/EEC — Cocoa and
  operatives Ltd v Commissioners of Customs & Excise ( 1)                   chocolate products containing fats other than cocoa butter
                                                                            — Products lawfully manufactured and marketed in the
                                                                            Member State of production under the sales name ‘chocolate’
(Sixth VAT Directive — Reduction coupons issued by a                        — Prohibition on marketing under that name in the Member
manufacturer — Taxable amount in the hands of the                                                    State of marketing)
                              retailer)
                                                                                (2003/C 44/03)
                          (2003/C 44/02)                                                        (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    (Language of the case: English)                                             in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            In Case C-12/00, Commission of the European Communities
                                                                            (Agent: G. Valero Jordana) v Kingdom of Spain (Agent: N. Díaz
In Case C-398/99: Reference to the Court under Article 234                  Abad): Application for a declaration that, by prohibiting cocoa
EC by the VAT and Duties Tribunal, Manchester (United                       and chocolate products to which vegetable fats other than
Kingdom) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
                                                                            cocoa butter have been added, and which are lawfully manufac-
before that tribunal between Yorkshire Co-operatives Ltd and                tured in Member States which authorise the addition of those
Commissioners of Customs & Excise, on the interpretation of
                                                                            fats, from being marketed in Spain under the name used for
Articles 11(A)(1)(a) and 11(C)(1) of the Sixth Council Directive
                                                                            their marketing in the Member State of production, the
77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the                       Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under
laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —
                                                                            Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28
Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assess-                  EC), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet,
ment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), the Court (Sixth Chamber),
                                                                            President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen, V. Skouris (Rappor-
composed of: R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), President of the
                                                                            teur), N. Colneric and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; S. Alber,
Second Chamber, acting for the President of the Sixth Chamb-                Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of Division,
er, C. Gulmann, V. Skouris, F. Macken and N. Colneric, Judges;
                                                                            for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 January 2003,
C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head                  in which it:
of Division, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
16 January 2003, in which it has ruled:
                                                                            1.    Declares that, by prohibiting cocoa and chocolate products
                                                                                which comply with the requirements as to minimum content
                                                                                laid down in point 1.16 of Annex I to Council Directive 73/
On a proper construction of Articles 11(A)(1)(a) and 11(C)(1) of
                                                                                241/EEC of 24 July 1973 on the approximation of the laws
the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the                      of the Member States relating to cocoa and chocolate products
harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover
                                                                                intended for human consumption to which vegetable fats other
taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of
                                                                                than cocoa butter have been added, and which are lawfully
assessment, when, on the sale of a product, the retailer allows the
                                                                                manufactured in Member States which authorise the addition
final consumer to settle the sale price partly in cash and partly by
                                                                                of those fats, from being marketed in Spain under the name
means of a reduction coupon issued by the manufacturer of that                    used for their marketing in the Member State of production, the
product, and the manufacturer reimburses to the retailer the amount
                                                                                Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under
indicated on that coupon, the nominal value of that coupon must be
                                                                                Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
included in the taxable amount in the hands of that retailer.                     Article 28 EC);
                                                                            2.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear the costs.
( 1) OJ C 6 of 8.1.2000.
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.


               10.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 410/5

         Action brought on 12 August 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
   (Case E-20/15)
   (2015/C 410/04)
   An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 12 August 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Øyvind Bø and Íris Ísberg, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               Declare that by failing to adopt the necessary measures to implement the Act referred to at point 1 of Chapter VIII of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, (Commission Directive 2013/10/EU amending Council Directive 75/324/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to aerosol dispensers in order to adapt its labelling provisions to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of the Act and Article 7 of the Agreement.

               2.

               Order Iceland to bear the costs of these proceedings.

      Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               The application addresses Iceland’s failure to comply, no later than 28 March 2015, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 28 January 2015 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Commission Directive 2013/10/EU amending Council Directive 75/324/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to aerosol dispensers in order to adapt its labelling provisions to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, as referred to at point 1 of Chapter VIII of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto (‘the Act’).

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of the Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.


title: Case T-195/99: Action brought on 6 September 1999 by Sim 2 Multimedia SpA against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 333/28              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                     20.11.1999
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               Pleas in law and main arguments
— annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of
    the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
    (Trademarks and Designs) of 16 June 1999 — Appeal                     This application seeks the annulment of the Commission
    No.R 216/1998-1;                                                      Decision of 2 June 1999 which condemns the aid granted to
                                                                          Seleco SpA by the Friuli-Venezia Giulia region through the
— order the costs of the proceedings to be borne by the                   intermediary of Friulia SpA and by the Italian Government
    defendant.                                                            through the intermediary of Ristrutturazione Elettronica SpA
                                                                          (REL), which consists in particular in the partial writing off by
                                                                          REL of LIT 16.8 billion of loans amounting to LIT 82 billion
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           in 1994 and the redemption by Seleco of the outstanding
                                                                          balance of LIT 65.2 billion for only LIT 20 billion in 1996, the
                                                                          grant of capital of LIT 13 billion by Friulia SpA in 1994 and
Trade mark concerned:         DOUBLEMINT -              Application       the grant by that company in 1996 of a convertible loan of
                              No. 000218255.                              LIT 12 billion at an interest rate of 7 % secured by four Seleco
                                                                          industrial trade marks.
Product or service:           Cosmetics, dentifrices, pharma-
                              ceutical, veterinary and sanitary
                              preparations, clothing, footwear,
                              headgear, games and playthings,             The Commission ordered the Italian Government to take the
                              coffee, tee, cocoa, sugar, rice, tapi-      necessary measures to recover the aid in question from Seleco
                              oca, biscuits, cakes, different con-        and, in the alternative, from the applicant, a company set up
                              diments and spices; etc (Inter-             by Multimedia during the administrative procedure.
                              national classes 3, 5, 25, 28 and
                              30).
                                                                          The applicant relies on the following pleas in support of its
Decision        contested     Refusal of registration by the              claims:
before the Board of           examiner.
Appeal:
                                                                          — Breach of the rights of the defence. It is argued on
Pleas in law relied on:       Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of              that point that no reference was ever made during the
                              Council Regulation (EC)No. 40/                  administrative procedure to the possibility that Multimedia
                              94.                                             might be jointly and severally liable for repayment of aid
                                                                              which the Commission considered illegal and incompatible
                                                                              with the common market. The applicant states that, in the
                                                                              successive phases of the procedure, the discussion between
                                                                              the Commission and the Italian Government only ever
                                                                              concerned the holding by Friulia and Italtel of two parcels
                                                                              of shares in Multimedia. There was never any discussion
                                                                              during the procedure or in any document published in the
Action brought on 6 September 1999 by Sim 2 Multime-                          Official Journal of any purported joint and several liability
dia SpA against the Commission of the European Com-                           on the part of Multimedia for the repayment required of
                           munities                                           Seleco. The applicant was never given an opportunity to
                                                                              express its views on that subject.
                        (Case T-195/99)
                                                                          — Breach of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty inasmuch as the
                        (1999/C 333/67)                                       defendant has not proved that the branches of the business
                                                                              released by Seleco and transferred to Multimedia received
                                                                              state aid. It is argued in that connection that, either the
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                            applicant did receive aid and it is then not clear why Seleco
                                                                              should be called upon to repay what the applicant received,
                                                                              or the applicant did not receive any undue advantage in
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                     which case it is inexplicable that it should be required to
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                    repay what Seleco cannot repay. In fact, if it had been
European Communities on 6 September 1999 by Sim 2 Multi-                      given the opportunity to do so the applicant could have
media SpA, represented by Alessio Vianello, of the Venice Bar,                proved that it paid a fair price for the branches of Seleco’s
with an address for service in Luxembourg at Elvinger, Hoss &                 business inasmuch as that price reflected the valuations
Prussen, 15 Cote d’Eich.                                                      made by an expert appointed by the relevant court.
The applicant claims that the Court should annul Article 2.1
of the Decision insofar as the Commission orders Italy in the             — Lack of competence, inasmuch as it is not for the
alternative to recover from Multimedia that part of the aid                   Commission to regulate the question of the transfer of civil
which cannot be recovered from Seleco, and make an order                      law relations between companies as this is a matter
for costs.                                                                    governed by national law.
 ---pagebreak--- 20.11.1999             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 333/29
— Abuse of process, inasmuch as it would be for the Court,               — declare the Council liable for the loss and damage caused
     in any event, to establish, in the course of proceedings for            by its failure to contest the TAC, adopted within NAFO, of
     failure to fulfil obligations, whether the conduct of a                 27 000 metric tonnes of Greenland halibut for 1995;
     Member State was apt to remedy breaches alleged in
     connection with an aid procedure or not.                            — declare the Council and the Commission liable for the loss
                                                                             and damage arising from the approval given to the signing
Finally, the applicant claims that the obligation to state reasons           of the bilateral Agreement between the EC and Canada and
was breached.                                                                the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 1761/95;
                                                                         — declare the Council and/or the Commission liable for the
                                                                             loss and damage caused by all or any of the acts of
                                                                             either of those institutions as described in the preceding
                                                                             paragraphs;
Action brought on 2 September 1999 by Area Cova S.A.
and Others against the Council of the European Union                     — order the Commission and the Council to pay compen-
    and the Commission of the European Communities                           sation for the losses suffered by the applicants as a result
                                                                             of the acts of both those institutions;
                         (Case T-196/99)
                                                                         — declare that the Commission and the Council are strictly
                        (1999/C 333/68)                                      liable, even in the absence of any fault or unlawful act, and
                                                                             order them to pay compensation for the loss and damage
                                                                             caused;
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                         — fix the amount of the compensation payable in relation to
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                             the damage suffered by the applicants in 1995 in a
ties and the Council of the European Union was brought
                                                                             minimum sum — corresponding to the criteria set out
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities               in the application in the present case — of between
on 2 September 1999 by Area Cova S.A., established in Vigo,                  23 836 750 euro and 50 393 979 euro;
Pontevedra, Spain, Armadora José Pereira S.A., established in
Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain, Armadores Pesqueros de Aldán S.A.,
established in Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain, Centropesca S.A.,                — order the parties to agree between them the amount of the
established in Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain, Chymar S.A., estab-                  compensation payable in respect of the damage suffered
lished in Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain, Eloymar S.A., established in              by the applicants in the years following 1995, on the basis
Estribela, Pontevedra, Spain, Exfaumar S.A., established in                  that such amount is to be reviewed and, if necessary,
Bueu, Pontevedra, Spain, Farpespan S.L., established in Moaña,              modified by the Court;
Pontevedra, Spain, Freiremar S.A., established in Vigo, Ponte-
vedra, Spain, Hermanos Gandón S.A., established in Cangas,              — fix the amount of the compensation payable in respect of
Pontevedra, Spain, Heroya S.A., established in Vigo, Ponteve-                the non-material damage suffered by the applicants, which
dra, Spain, Hio Pesca S.A., established in Vigo, Pontevedra,                 should in their view total 25 000 euro in relation to each
Spain, José Pereira e Hijos S.A., established in Vigo, Pontevedra,           vessel concerned;
Spain, Juana Oya Pérez, residing in Marı́n, Pontevedra, Spain,
Manuel Nores González, residing in Marı́n, Pontevedra, Spain,
Moradiña S.A., established in Cangas, Pontevedra, Spain,                — order the Council and/or the Commission to pay to the
Navales Cerdeiras S.A., established in Camariñas, La Coruña,               applicants the whole of the costs incurred by the applicants
Spain, Nugago Pesca S.A., established in Bueu, Pontevedra,                   in the proceedings.
Spain, Pesquera Austral S.A., established in Vigo, Pontevedra,
Spain, Pescaberbés S.A., established in Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain,
Pesquera Cı́es S.A., established in Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain,             Pleas in law and main arguments
Pesca Herculina S.A., established in Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain,
Pesquera Inter S.A., established in Cangas, Pontevedra, Spain,
Pesquerı́as Marinenses S.A., established in Marı́n, Pontevedra,          The applicants in the present case claim that they should be
Spain, Pesquerı́as Tara S.A., established in Cangas, Pontevedra,         paid compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by them,
Spain, Pesquera Vaqueiro S.A., established in Vigo, Pontevedra,          which has been caused by the unlawful and negligent way in
Spain, and Sotelo Dios S.A., established in Vigo, Pontevedra,            which, according to them, the Council and the Commission
Spain, represented by Antonio Creus Carreras, of the Barcelona           have acted in the so-called ‘halibut war’. In their submission,
Bar, and Eva Contreras Ynzenga and Albert Agustinoy Guilayn,             there are three specific masters giving rise to non-contractual
of the Madrid Bar, with an address for service c/o Cabinet               liability:
Cuatrecasas, 78 Avenue d’Auderghem, Brussels.
                                                                         — the negotiations conducted by the Commission at the
The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                             NAFO meeting in September 1994, which culminated in
— declare the Commission liable for the loss and damage                      the regulation by NAFO of fishing for Greenland halibut
     arising from its conduct in the course of the negotiations              and the adoption of a TAC for Greenland halibut in 1995;
     held within the framework of the NAFO Convention with
     a view to establishing a TAC for Greenland halibut for              — the failure by the Council to oppose the proposed TAC of
     1995;                                                                   27 000 metric tonnes for Greenland halibut; and


title: Case C-306/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação do Porto (Portugal) lodged on 30 May 2016 — António Fernando Maio Marques da Rosa v Varzim Sol — Turismo, Jogo e Animação, S

text:
               5.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação do Porto (Portugal) lodged on 30 May 2016 — António Fernando Maio Marques da Rosa v Varzim Sol — Turismo, Jogo e Animação, S
   (Case C-306/16)
   (2016/C 326/19)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal da Relação do Porto

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: António Fernando Maio Marques da Rosa

      Respondent: Varzim Sol — Turismo, Jogo e Animação, S

      Question(s) referred

               1.

               In the light of Article 5 of Directive 93/104/EC (1) of 23 November 1993, and Directive 2003/88/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003, as well as Article 31 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in the case of workers engaged in shift work and rotating rest periods, in an establishment that is open every day of the week but which does not have continuous 24-hour productive periods, must the compulsory day of rest that a worker is entitled to be granted in each period of seven days, that is, at the latest on the seventh day following six consecutive working days?

               2.

               Do those directives and provisions preclude an interpretation to the effect that, in relation to those workers, the employer is free to choose the days on which he grants a worker, for each week, the rest periods to which he is entitled, so that the worker may be required, without overtime pay, to work for up to ten consecutive days (for example, between Wednesday of one week, preceded by a rest period on Monday and Tuesday, until Friday of the following week, followed by a rest period on Saturday and Sunday)?

               3.

               Do those directives and provisions preclude an interpretation to the effect that the uninterrupted rest period of 24 hours may be granted on any of the calendar days in a given period of seven calendar days, and the subsequent uninterrupted rest period of 24 hours (to which are added the 11 hours of daily rest) may also be granted on any of the calendar days in the period of seven calendar days immediately following the period mentioned above?

               4.

               Do those directives and provisions, taking into account also the provision in Article 16(a) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003, preclude an interpretation to the effect that a worker, instead of taking an uninterrupted rest period of 24 hours (to which are added to 11 hours of daily rest) for each period of seven days, may take two periods, which may or may not be consecutive, of uninterrupted rest of 24 hours in any of the 4 calendar days of a given reference period of 14 calendar days?

      (1)  Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 1993 L 307, p. 18).

      (2)  Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9).


title: Case T-476/07: Action brought on 13 December 2007 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Frontex

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/55

         Action brought on 13 December 2007 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Frontex
   (Case T-476/07)
   (2008/C 51/100)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders (FRONTEX)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of FRONTEX to evaluate the applicant's bid as not successful and award the contract to the successful tenderer;

               —

               order FRONTEX to pay the applicant's damages suffered on account of the tendering procedure in question for an amount of 500 000 EUR;

               —

               order the Commission (DIGIT) to pay the applicant's legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application, even if the current application is rejected;

               —

               order FRONTEX to pay the applicant's legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant submitted a bid in response to the defendant's call for an open tender for the provision of informatics services and hardware and software licences (OJ 2007/S 114-139890). The applicant contests the defendant's decision of 3 October 2007 rejecting the applicant's bid and informing the applicant that the contract will be awarded to another tenderer.
   In support of its application, the applicant submits that the defendant failed to state reasons in accordance with Article 253 EC and used evaluation criteria that were not expressly included in the call for tender. Furthermore, the applicant alleges that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment.


title: Case F-115/11: Action brought on 27 October 2011 — ZZ v EIB

text:
               7.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/28

         Action brought on 27 October 2011 — ZZ v EIB
   (Case F-115/11)
   2012/C 6/53
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: N. Thieltgen, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Investment Bank

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of the President of the EIB not to appoint the applicant but another candidate to the post of head of a division within the EIB and a claim for damages.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the President of the EIB not to appoint the applicant to the post of Head of the Risk Policy and Pricing Division within the Credit Risk Directorate of the Risk Management Directorate and not to have awarded him the post of Head of the Risk Policy and Pricing Division within the Credit Risk Directorate of the Risk Management Directorate;

               —

               direct the EIB to take the necessary measures in order to put in place a lawful procedure for filling the post;

               —

               find the EIB liable vis-à-vis the applicant in respect of the unlawfulness of the decision to appoint another candidate to the contested post;

               —

               order the EIB to pay compensation to make good the material and non-material damage suffered by the applicant, together with default interest:

                           —

                           non-material damage: EUR 50 000;

                           —

                           material damage in respect of loss of earnings: EUR 436 100;

               —

               order the EIB to pay the costs.


title: Case T-624/14: Action brought on 12 August 2014 — Bice International v OHIM — Bice (bice)

text:
               6.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 351/28

         Action brought on 12 August 2014 — Bice International v OHIM — Bice (bice)
   (Case T-624/14)
   2014/C 351/36
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Bice International Ltd (Dubai, United Arabs Emirates) (represented by: N. Gibb, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bice AG (Baar, Switzerland)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 May 2014 given in Case R 1249/2013-1.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The word mark ‘bice’ for goods and services in Classes 29, 30 and 43 — Community trade mark registration No 5 1 26  693

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: It was alleged that the CTM application was filed in bad faith, within the meaning of Article 52(1)(b) CTMR and registered in breach of Article 53(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(b) CTMR

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the request for invalidity in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 52(1)(b), 53(1)(a) in conjunction with 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(b) CTMR.


title: Case C-493/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d'appel de Bordeaux, chambre de l'instruction, by order of that Court of 4 November 2003 in the case of Ministère public against André Rochus Hiebeler

text:
C 21/22                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        24.1.2004
           available, but this has no effect on its own value.             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d’appel de
           The decisive point is that the study itself contains            Bordeaux, chambre de l’instruction, by order of that
           new scientific evidence and conclusions and clearly             Court of 4 November 2003 in the case of Ministère public
           shows that a current risk of negative consequences                              against André Rochus Hiebeler
           for the environment, fauna and flora cannot be ruled
           out.
                                                                                (Case C-493/03)
     —     Problem specific to the Member State concerned
                                                                                (2004/C 21/40)
           The structure of the farming system in Upper
           Austria, demonstrably consisting of small farms,
           coupled with the constant increase in the proportion
           of organically managed areas and the number of
           organically run farming enterprises, means that the             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
           character of this region of the Community is unique.            European Communities by order of the Cour d’appel de
                                                                           Bordeaux, chambre de l’instruction, (Examining Chamber of
           In the opinion of the Republic of Austria, the                  the Bordeaux Court of Appeal) of 4 November 2003, received
           additional requirement laid down by Article 95(5)               at the Court Registry on 24 November 2003, for a preliminary
           EC, that the problem which is specific to the                   ruling in the case of Ministère public against André Rochus
           Member State should have arisen only after the                  Hiebeler on the following questions:
           harmonisation measure has been adopted, has been
           fulfilled. The fact that concerns had arisen earlier in
           that regard does not preclude this. The decisive                —     Do the transportation and sale of the same quantity of
           point is that the full extent of the problem became                   drugs constitute different acts depending on whether
           apparent only after the adoption of the harmonis-                     these acts are committed in only one Member State or
           ation measure. Only on publication of the Müller                      from one Member State to another?
           study on 28 April 2002 was it possible to confirm
           the actual scope of the problem.                                —     Does the importation into a Member State of the same
                                                                                quantity of drugs and its transportation shortly thereafter
     —     Proportionality                                                       to another Member State constitute a single act or
                                                                                separate acts?
           The Oö. GTVG 2002 should be seen as a national
           provision which is necessary for the protection of              —     Does Article 54 of the Schengen Convention entitle a
           the environment and which, having regard to the                       Contracting State to which a request for extradition is
           fact that it is applicable for a limited period of three              addressed to accept a plea of ne bis in idem where the
           years, also falls to be classified as proportionate.                  requirements for the application of that principle are met,
                                                                                but where the final conviction on the basis of which it
     —     The precautionary principle and the principle that                    is sought to have the prosecution discontinued was
           preventive action should be taken                                     pronounced not in that State but in another Contracting
                                                                                State?
           The Oö. GTVG 2002 is a precautionary and preven-
           tive measure within the meaning of Article 174(2)
           EC. This provision states that Community policy on              —     Does the prohibition under Article 54 of the Schengen
           the environment is to aim at a high level of                          Convention preclude the enforcement of a judgment
           protection taking into account the diversity of                       imposing a penalty delivered in a Member State before
           situations in the various regions of the Community                    the coming into force of that Convention?
           and is to be based inter alia on the precautionary
           principle and the principle that preventive action              —     Does the offence of being a party to dealing in more than
           should be taken. The distinction drawn by the                         minimal quantities of drugs, laid down by and punishable
           Community legislature makes sense only if the                         under Paragraphs 30.I.4, 29.I(1), III(2)2 and 29.I.4, Para-
           terms ‘precaution’ and ‘prevention’ are each given a                  graph 3-I, 2-I, 1-I combined with Annex III of Para-
           separate meaning. ‘Precaution’ accordingly begins at                  graph 1-II of the German Law on drugs, in the version of
           a point in time at which a threat to the environment                  27 January 1987, and Paragraphs 25-II, 52 and 53 of the
           is not sufficiently precise for ‘preventive action’ to                Federal Criminal Code, protect the same legal interests as,
           be necessary in relation to it. The Oö. GTVG 2002                     or different legal interests from, those protected by the
           is clearly aimed at the avoidance of risks and is                     offence of the importation, unlawful possession and sale
           therefore justified by the precautionary principle.                   of more than minimal and partially substantial quantities
                                                                                of drugs, laid down by and punishable under Articles 71,
                                                                                72, 74(I)2, 74(II) and 75 of Italian Law No 685/75 of
(1) OJ L 230 of 16.9.2003, p. 34.                                                22 December 1975 and Articles 81, 56 and 110 of the
(2) OJ L 106 of 17.4.2001, p. 1.                                                 Italian Criminal Code?


title: Action brought on 26 June 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium (Case C-221/96)

text:
14 . 9 . 96             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      No C 269/5
Action brought on 26 June 1996 by the Commission of the                         Council Directive 67/548/EEC ( 2 ) on the approximation
 European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium                            of laws, regulations and administrative provisions
                         ( Case C-2 19/96 )                                     relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of
                                                                                dangerous substances, or by not communicating those
                            ( 96/C 269/ 11 )
                                                                                measures, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
                                                                                obligations under that Directive,
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on               — order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .
26 June 1996 by the Commission of the European
Communities , represented by Gotz zur Hausen, acting as                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Agent, assisted by J. -J. Evrard, Avocat, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la                The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
Cruz, of the Commission's Legal Service, Wagner Centre,                  in Case C-196/96 ( 3 ); the period prescribed by the Directive
Kirchberg .                                                              expired on 30 October 1993 .
The applicant claims that the Court should :                             (') OJ No L 383 , 29 . 12 . 1992 , p . 113 .
                                                                         ( 2 ) Official Journal, English Special Edition 1967, p. 234 .
— declare that, by not adopting the laws , regulations and               ( 3 ) OJ No C 247, 24 . 8 . 1996 , p . 4 .
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      Commission Directive 93/86/EEC ( ') of 4 October 1993
      adapting to technical progress Council Directive
      91 / 157/EEC ( 2 ) on batteries and accumulators
      containing certain dangerous substances, or by not
      communicating those measures, the Kingdom of
      Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that            Action brought on 26 June 1996 by the Commission of the
      Directive ,
                                                                          European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium
                                                                                Case C-221 /96 )
— order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .                                                    ( 96/C 269/ 13 )
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
                                                                         before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those               26 June 1996 by the Commission of the European
in Case C-205/96 ( 3 ); the period prescribed by the Directive           Communities, represented by Gotz zur Hausen, acting as
expired on 31 December 1993 .                                            Agent, assisted by J. -J. Evrard, Avocat, with an address for
                                                                         service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la
(') OJ No L 264 , 23 . 10 . 1993 , p . 51                                Cruz, of the Commission's Legal Service , Wagner Centre ,
(-) OJ No L 78 , 26 . 3 . 1991 , p . 38 .                                Kirchberg.
( 5 ) OJ No C 247, 24 . 8 . 1996 , p . 7.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                         — declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and
                                                                                administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                                Commission Directive 93/67/EEC (') of 20 July 1993
Action brought on 26 June 1996 by the Commission of the                         laying down the principles for assessment of risks to man
 European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium                            and    the   environment      of    substances   notified in
                          ( Case C-220/96 )                                     accordance with Council Directive 67/548/EEC ( 2 ), or
                             ( 96/C 269/ 12 )                                   by not communicating those measures , the Kingdom of
                                                                                Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
                                                                                first-mentioned Directive ,
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
26 June 1996 by the Commission of the European                           — order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .
Communities , represented by Gotz zur Hausen, acting as
Agent, assisted by J. -J. Evrard, Avocat, with an address for             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la
Cruz, of the Commission 's Legal Service , Wagner Centre,                 The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
Kirchberg.                                                                in Case C-205/96 ( ? ); the period prescribed by the Directive
                                                                          expired on 31 October 1993 .
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                          (') OJ No L 227, 8 . 9 . 1993 , p . 9 .
— declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and                 ( 2 ) Official Journal, English Special Edition 1967, p. 234 .
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with                  (') OJ No C 247, 24 . 8 . 1996 , p. 7 .
      Commission Directive 92/69/EEC (') of 31 July 1992
      adapting to technical progress for the 7th time


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 15 May 2003 in Case T-47/03 R: Jose Maria Sison v Council of the European Union (Interlocutory proceedings — Restrictive measures with a view to combating terrorism — Freezing of funds — Disallowance of benefits — Partial inadmissibility of the orders sought — Urgency — Absence)

text:
20.9.2003              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 226/17
annulment of the implied decision of the Court of Auditors                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
rejecting the applicant's request for reinstatement following                                         INSTANCE
leave on personal grounds of 22 January 2001, and the Court
of Auditors" decision of 12 December 2001 rejecting the com-                                       of 15 May 2003
plaint lodged by the applicant on 14 August 2001 and, second,
compensation for material and non-material loss allegedly suf-            in Case T-47/03 R: Jose Maria Sison v Council of the
fered by the applicant, — the Court of First Instance (R. García-                                  European Union
Valdecasas, single Judge); J. Plingers, Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 July 2003, in which it:             (Interlocutory proceedings — Restrictive measures with a
                                                                          view to combating terrorism — Freezing of funds —
                                                                          Disallowance of benefits — Partial inadmissibility of the
1.   Dismisses the application;                                                       orders sought — Urgency — Absence)
                                                                                (2003/C 226/36)
2.   Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          In Case T-47/03 R, Jose Maria Sison, resident in Utrecht (the
(1) OJ No C 131 of 1 June 2002.                                           Netherlands), represented by J. Fermon, A. Comte, H.E. Schultz,
                                                                          D. Gurses, T. Olsson and J. Lamchek, lawyers, against Council
                                                                          of the European Union (Agents: M. Vitsentzatos and
                                                                          M. Bishop): Application for, first, an order suspending the
                                                                          operation of Decision 2002/974/EC implementing Article 2
                                                                          (3) of Regulation No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive mea-
                                                                          sures directed against certain persons and entities with a view
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                          to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2002/848/EC
                                                                          (OJ 2002 L 337, p. 85) in so far as it mentions the name of the
                         of 25 June 2003                                  applicant, second, an order requesting the Council not to
                                                                          include the applicant in any new decision implementing
in Case T-287/02 Asian Institute of Technology v                          Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001 and, third, an order
       Commission of the European Communities (1)                         requesting the Council to inform all Member States that the
                                                                          restrictive measures adopted in relation to the applicant have
(Action for annulment — Decision to conclude a research                   no legal basis, the President of the Court of First Instance made
            contract — Time-limit — Inadmissible)                         an order on 15 May 2003, the operative part of which is as
                                                                          follows:
                         (2003/C 226/35)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          1.   The application for interim relief is dismissed;
In Case T-287/02: Asian Institute of Technology (AIT), whose              2.   Costs are reserved.
registered office is at Pathumthani (Thailand), represented by
H. Teissier du Cros, lawyer, with an address for service in
Luxembourg, against Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: P. Kuijper and B. Schöfer) — application
for annulment of the decision of the Commission of 4 July
2000 to conclude a research contract under the ‘Asia-Invest’
programme with the Center for Energy-Environment Research
and Development — the Court of First Instance (Fifth
Chamber), composed of R. Garcia-Valdecasas, President,                          ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given
a judgment on 25 June 2003, in which it:                                                           of 16 May 2003
                                                                          in Case T-140/03: Forum 187 ASBL v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
1.   Dismisses the application as inadmissible.
                                                                                (Declining of jurisdiction)
2.   Orders the applicant to pay its own costs and those incurred by
     the Commission.                                                                               (2003/C 226/37)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
(1) OJ C 289, 23.11.2002.                                                 In Case T-140/03, Forum 187 ASBL, represented by A. Sutton
                                                                          and J. Killick, Barristers, v Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities (Agents: V. Di Bucci, R. Lyal and G. Rozet):


title: Case C-557/15: Action brought on 30 October 2015 — European Commission v Republic of Malta

text:
               11.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/11

         Action brought on 30 October 2015 — European Commission v Republic of Malta
   (Case C-557/15)
   (2016/C 007/18)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Hermes, K. Mifsud-Bonnici, agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Malta

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that by adopting a derogation regime allowing the live-capturing of seven species of wild finches (Chaffinch Fringilla coelebs, Linnet Carduelis cannabina, Goldfinch Carduelis carduelis, Greenfinch Carduelis chloris, Hawfinch Coccothraustes coccothraustes, Serin Serinus serinus and Siskin Carduelis spinus), the Republic of Malta has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(a) and 5(e) and 8(1) in connection with Annex IV, point (a), read in conjunction with Article 9(1), of Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds (1);

               —

               order Republic of Malta to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Malta introduced a derogation regime for the authorization of trapping seven species of wild finches in 2014 under which it authorized trapping seasons in 2014 and 2015.
   Directive 2009/147 obliges Member States to prohibit the capture and keeping of wild birds not included in Annex II, such as the finches in question, and any capture of wild birds via non-selective means such as traps or nets. Any derogation from these prohibitions is subject to the strict conditions set out in Article 9 of the Directive.
   The Commission considers that Malta's derogation regime allowing the trapping of the seven finch species is inconsistent with Articles 5(a), 5(e) and 8(1) in connection with Annex IV, point (a) of the Directive.
   The Commission considers that Malta has not established that the conditions for derogation set out in Article 9(1) of the Directive are met. First, Malta fails to demonstrate the absence of another satisfactory solution as required by the chapeau of Article 9(1) of the Directive. Second, Malta's derogation regime fails to provide a statement of reasons with regard to the alleged absence of other satisfactory solutions. Third, Malta has not demonstrated that the authorized activity constitutes ‘judicious use’ within the meaning of Article 9(1)(c) of the Directive. Fourth, Malta fails to demonstrate compliance with the requirement in Article 9(1)(c) of the Directive that the derogation only concerns ‘small numbers’ of birds. Fifth, Malta has not established that the authorization occurs under ‘strictly supervised conditions’ as required by Article 9(1)(c) of the Directive.

      (1)  OJ L 20, p. 7.


title: Case T-46/08 P: Appeal brought on 28 January 2008 by Luigi Marcuccio against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 6 December 2007 in Case F-40/06, Marcuccio v Commission

text:
               29.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/32

         Appeal brought on 28 January 2008 by Luigi Marcuccio against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 6 December 2007 in Case F-40/06, Marcuccio v Commission

   (Case T-46/08 P)
   (2008/C 79/63)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

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

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               annul the order delivered on 6 December 2007 in Case F-40/06 Marcuccio v Commission of the First Chamber of the Public Service Tribunal of the European Union insofar as (a) the action brought by the applicant at first instance was dismissed on grounds other than absence of legal interest in bringing proceedings; (b) the applicant's claims to obtain compensation in respect of the damage (‘the damage in question’) arising from the facts in the case were rejected; and (c) the applicant was ordered to pay the defendant's costs;

               —

               declare that the action at first instance was admissible, and in particular that the applicant, at the time he brought that action, had a legal interest in bringing proceedings;

               —

               uphold the conclusions relating to compensation for the damage in question and order the defendant to pay all the costs borne by the applicant in respect of both the action at first instance and the present appeal;

               —

               in the alternative, refer the present case back to the Public Service Tribunal for a ruling on: (a) all those parts of the present case on which the court did not rule or which were annulled by the judgment to be made in this appeal; (b) the costs of the action at first instance and of the appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Absolute failure to state reasons and reasons which are, inter alia, manifestly illogical, inconsistent and confused, absence of preliminary enquiries, failure to rule on a fundamental fact of the present case and infringement of the obligation of clare loqui, misrepresentation and distortion of the facts (in particular, paragraphs 10, 12, 26 to 38 inclusive and 42 to 46 inclusive of the contested order).
   Erroneous interpretation, misinterpretation and misapplication of the general principles and provisions of law and Community case-law on compensation for damage (in particular, paragraphs 42 to 46 of the contested order).
   Manifest lack of logic of the judgment and ruling of the Civil Service Tribunal on costs as well as unreasonableness, absolute failure to state reasons, inconsistency, misrepresentation and distortion of the actual facts, arbitrariness (in particular, paragraphs 49 and 50 of the contested order).
   Absolute failure to state the reasons for the decision which is the subject-matter of the complaint in the action at first instance (in particular, paragraphs 26 to 38 inclusive of the contested order).
   Misrepresentation and distortion of the facts and related procedural errors which are so serious that they infringe irremediably the rights of the applicant to a defence and infringe essential procedural requirements such as to invalidate irremediably the contested order (in particular, paragraph 24 of the contested order).
   Infringement of the rules concerning a fair trial, with particular reference to the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights (paragraphs 24 and 26 to 38 inclusive of the contested order).


title: Appeal brought on 20 February 1996 by Nicolaos Progoulis against the order made on 15 December 1995 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-131/95 between Nicolaos Progoulis and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-49/96 P)

text:
No C 108/6              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                           13 . 4 . 96
— misuse of discretionary powers : the fact that the                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    European Commission adopts, in its entirety, a decision
    made by the Thermie Committee does not mean that                     — The appellant maintains that, by rigidly linking the
    that decision is free from errors committed in the                          judgment in Baiwir (2 ) to the applicability of Article 32
    exercise of discretionary powers . Moreover, the                            of the Staff Regulations, relating to recruitment, or
    judgment fails to recognize that that committee is not                      Article 46 , relating to promotion, the Court of First
    composed of independent technical experts ;                                 Instance arrived at an erroneous conclusion . The
                                                                                appellant maintains that the principle emerging from the
— infringement of the third paragraph of Article 175 of the                     judgment in question is that of equality of treatment
    EC Treaty and of the fourth paragraph of Article 173                        between successful internal and external candidates as
    and Article 176 thereof.                                                    regards taking into account the professional experience
                                                                                acquired by them prior to their entry into service .
(') OJ No C 31 , 3 . 2 . 1996 , p . 18 .
                                                                         — The Court of First Instance wrongly applied
                                                                                Article 87 ( 3 ) of its Rules of Procedure; the appellant was
                                                                                forced to bring legal proceedings by reason of his
                                                                                inability to obtain from the defendant any convincing
                                                                                explanations concerning his regrading .
Appeal brought on 20 February 1996 by Nicolaos Progoulis
against the order made on 15 December 1995 by the Fifth                  (') OJ No C 64, 2 . 3 . 1996 .
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                   ( 2 ) Judgment of 28 . 9 . 1993 in Case T-l 03/92, OJ No C 287,
    Communities in Case T-131 /95 between Nicolaos                             23 . 10 . 1993 , p . 10 .
      Progoulis and the Commission of the European
                           Communities
                         Case C-49/96 P
                          ( 96/C 108/10 )
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Vergabe
An appeal against the order made on 15 December 1995 by                  iiberwachungsausschul? des Bundes ( Public Procurement
the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                  Awards Supervisory Board of the Federal Republic) First
European Communities in                  Case T-131 /95   between        Chamber, of 5 February 1996 in public procurement
Nicolaos Progoulis and the Commission of the European                    awards supervisory proceedings between Dorsch Consult
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the                         Ingenieurgesellschaft mbH, the applicant, and
European Communities on 20 February 19 96 by Nicolaos                            Bundesbaugesellschaft Berlin mbH, the awarding
Progoulis , represented by Konstantinos Adamantopoulos                                                        authority
and Vassilios Akritidis , of the Athens Bar, with an address                                             ( Case C-54/96 )
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arsène
                                                                                ( 96/C 108/11 )
Kronshagen, 12 Boulevard de la Foire .
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
The appellant claims that the Court should :
                                                                        European Communities by order of the Vergabe
1,  set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of the            uberwachungsausschutë des Bundes ( First Chamber ) of 5
    European Communities of 15 December 1995 in Case                     February 1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on
    T-131 /95 ('), in so far as, first, it dismisses his                21 February 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the public
    application as inadmissible and, second , it orders him to          procurement awards supervisory proceedings between
    pay all of the costs ;                                              Dorsch Consult Ingenieurgesellschaft mbH, the applicant,
                                                                         and Bundesbaugesellschaft Berlin mbH, the awarding
2 , annul the decision of the defendant, addressed to the               authority, on the following question :
    appellant by letter of 20 March 1995 , rejecting his
    application to be regraded in step 2 of grade B1 with                is Article 41 of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June
    retroactive effect from 1 March 1983 and for the                     1 992 ( 1 ) to be interpreted to the effect that after
    financial consequences of the regrading applied for to be            30 June 1993 the bodies set up by the Member States in
                                                                         accordance         with      Council       Directive 89/665/EEC      of
    taken into account and calculated retroactively from
    1 March 1983 , together with compound legal interest at              21 December 1989 to review decisions taken by the
    the annual rate of 10% ;                                            contracting authorities as regards contract award
                                                                         procedures falling within the scope of Directives
3 , adopt measures of organization of procedure on the                   71 /305/EEC and 77/62/EEC are also competent to review
    basis of Article 45 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court           decisions taken in procedures for the award of public service
    of Justice of the European Communities, in accordance                contracts within the meaning of Directive 92/50/EEC on the
    with the application made by the appellant in                        grounds that such decisions have allegedly infringed
    paragraph 18 of the appeal ;                                         Community law in the field of public procurement or
                                                                         national rules implementing that law ?
4 , order the defendant to pay the costs of the appeal
    together with all of the costs incurred in Case T-131 /95            (>) OJ 1992 L 209 , p . 1 .
    before the Court of First Instance of the European
    Communities .


19.6.1999             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 174/15
applicant states that Deutsche Post AG has spent several                        Removal from the register of Case T-210/96 (1)
billion DEM to acquire subsequently joint control of DHL
International and control of some of the major freight carriers                                  (1999/C 174/30)
and/or parcel providers. According to the applicant, there is
no evidence that no State aid is involved. Such issues can and
must be examined by the Commission.                                                         (Language of the case: French)
The applicant emphasises that the Commission’s intervention              By order of 10 February 1999 the President of the First
in this case is crucial for maintaining competition in the               Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
markets concerned. Currently, the postal and parcel market is            Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
characterised by an impressive wave of take-overs by the                 Case T-210/96: Margarida Marı́z Mendes Pires Afonso v
(former) national post offices and particularly Deutsche Post            Commission of the European Communities.
AG. Private operators are not able to meet this form of
competition and will, if no appropriate action is taken by the           (1) OJ No C 54 of 22.2.1997.
Commission, be eliminated from the market.
On 21 December 1998, the applicant sent a letter inviting the
Commission to take a decision with regard to its complaint.
The applicant announced that it would initiate proceedings
under Article 175 of the EC Treaty if the Commission did not
inform the applicant within two months from the date of that                    Removal from the register of Case T-291/97 (1)
letter. The period of two months thus expired on 21 February
1999 without the Commission having taken a decision or                                           (1999/C 174/31)
defined its position in regard to the applicant’s complaint
under Article 92 of the EC Treaty.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
The applicant submits that the period of more than 10 months
which has elapsed since the complaint was submitted is a                 By order of 12 March 1999 the President of the Fifth Chamber
sufficiently long period to enable the Commission to close the           of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
preliminary stage of investigation and to initiate a formal              has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-291/97:
investigation under Article 93(2) of the EC Treaty.                      Robert Mehlen and Others v Council of the European Union
                                                                         and Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                         (1) OJ No C 7 of 10.1.1998.
       Removal from the register of Case T-194/96 (1)
                        (1999/C 174/29)                                         Removal from the register of Case T-610/97 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 174/32)
                   (Language of the case: French)
By order of 23 March 1999 the President of the First Chamber                               (Language of the case: Danish)
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-194/96:              By order of 8 February 1999 the President of the Fourth
Mireille Meskens v European Parliament.                                  Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                         Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                         Case T-610/97: Ingeborg Fangel v Council of the European
(1) OJ No C 9 of 11.1.1997.                                              Union and Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                         (1) OJ No C 55 of 20.2.1998.


title: Case C-384/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 5 July 2013 — Estación de Servicio Pozuelo 4, S.L. v GALP Energía España, S.A.U.

text:
               21.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 5 July 2013 — Estación de Servicio Pozuelo 4, S.L. v GALP Energía España, S.A.U.
   (Case C-384/13)
   2013/C 274/15
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Estación de Servicio Pozuelo 4, S.L.

      Other party: GALP Energía España, S.A.U.

      Questions referred

               1.

               Can a contract such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which a supplier of petroleum-based products is granted a right known as a ‘surface right’ for a period of 45 years for the purpose of building a service station and letting it to the owner of the land for a period equivalent to the duration of the right, and which contains an exclusive purchasing obligation for the same period, be regarded as being of negligible importance and as not being caught by the prohibition laid down in Article 81(1) EC (now Article 101(1) TFEU) on the grounds, principally, of the supplier’s modest market share of less than 3 %, compared to the total market share of about 70 % held by three suppliers alone, even though the duration of this contract exceeds the average duration of contracts generally concluded on the relevant market?

               2.

               If the reply were to be in the negative and the agreement were to fall to be examined under Regulation No 1984/83 (1) and Regulation No 2790/99, (2) may Article 12(2) of Regulation No 2790/99 in conjunction with Article 5(a) of the same regulation be interpreted as meaning that, in view of the reseller’s not being the owner of the land and the remaining duration of the contract’s being more than five years on 1 January 2002, the contract will become void on 31 December 2006?

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1984/83 of 22 June 1983 on the application of Article 85(3) of the Treaty to categories of exclusive purchasing agreements (OJ 1983 L 173, p. 5).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 of 22 December 1999 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices (OJ 1999 L 336, p. 21).