title: Case F-133/14: Action brought on 17 November 2014 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               19.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/50

      Action brought on 17 November 2014 — ZZ v Commission
      (Case F-133/14)
      (2015/C 016/74)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: ZZ (represented by: J.-N. Louis, R. Metz and D. Verbeke, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

      Application for annulment of the decision relating to the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights to the European Union pension scheme, that decision applying the new GIP for Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials.

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

                  —

                  annul the Commission’s decision of 18 February 2014 fixing the calculation of the bonus applied to his pension rights acquired before he took up his functions at the Commission;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-343/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Chemnitz (Germany) lodged on 8 August 2006 — Peter Funk v Stadt Chemnitz

text:
               18.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Chemnitz (Germany) lodged on 8 August 2006 — Peter Funk v Stadt Chemnitz
   (Case C-343/06)
   (2006/C 281/29)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Verwaltungsgericht Chemnitz
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Peter Funk

      Defendant: Stadt Chemnitz
   Question(s) referred

               1.

               Is a Member State permitted, in conformity with Article 1(2) and Article 8(2) and (4) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC (1) of 29 July 1991, to require a holder of a driving licence issued in another Member State to apply to the national authority of the first Member State for recognition of the right to drive in its territory where the holder of the foreign EU driving licence has previously, in the territory of the first Member State, had his driving licence withdrawn or cancelled for some reason?

         If not:

               2.

               Are the combined provisions of Article 1(2) and Article 8(2) and (4) of Directive 91/439/EEC to be interpreted as meaning that a Member State within its territory may refuse to recognise a right to drive under a driving licence issued by another Member State where the holder of the foreign EU driving licence has previously, in the territory of the first Member State, had his driving licence withdrawn by the administrative authority where the law of the first Member State considers that in the case of administrative measures for the withdrawal or cancellation of a driving licence there is no ban on its reissue and where entitlement to the reissue of a driving licence does not arise until the person concerned has provided evidence of aptitude to drive as a material prerequisite for the reissue of the driving licence in the form of a medical/psychological report regulated in more detail under national law, on an order by the administrative authority?

         If not:

               3.

               Are the combined provisions of Article 1(2) and Article 8(2) and (4) of Directive 91/439/EEC to be interpreted as meaning that a Member State within its territory may refuse to recognise a right to drive under a driving licence issued by another Member State where the holder of the foreign EU driving licence has previously, in the territory of the first Member State, had his driving licence withdrawn or cancelled for some reason by the administrative authorities and where it is to be concluded on the basis of objective evidence (non-residence in the Member State issuing the driving licence or the failure of an application for the national driving licence to be restored) that the only reason for acquiring the foreign EU driving licence was to circumvent the strict substantive requirements of national procedure for the restoration of a driving licence, particularly the need for a medical/psychological report?

      (1)  OJ L 237, p.1.


C 278/20              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                      5.9.98
Ð the above view of the Court is based exclusively on                  legislature failed to exercise its discretion when setting
    grounds that are either irrelevant, represent incorrect            the amount of the compensation.
    views of the law or distort the facts emerging from the
    judgment and the documents before the Court,
                                                                   (1) OJ C 184, 13.6.1998, p. 9.
    contrary to law,
Ð (alternatively) the Court did not attempt to clarify the
    uncertainty which itself found regarding the actual
    situation, since it did not appraise, discuss or, to an
    extent, even mention the relevant evidence submitted
    by the plaintiff.                                              Action brought on 7 July 1998 by the Commission of the
                                                                       European Communities against the French Republic
                                                                                (Case C-239/98)
(As to the existence of a direct and foreseeable causal link)
                                                                                (98/C 278/34)
Ð The Court's view that the facts found by it should not
    be characterised as a direct [and foreseeable] causal         An action against the French Republic was brought before
    link between the alleged damage and the adoption of            the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 7 July
    Regulation (EEC) No 2340/90' constitutes an error of           1998 by the Commission of the European Communities,
    law. If a correct characterisation were made, the              represented by Christina Tufvesson, Legal Adviser, and
    existence of such a causal link would follow from the          Bernard Mongin, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents,
    facts found by the Court,                                      with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
                                                                   Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Ð the grounds given by the Court for the above view are
    either irrelevant, based on an incorrect view of the law       The Commission of the European Communities claims
    or should not be applied because they are based on a           that the Court should:
    finding of facts which constitutes an error of law,
                                                                   Ð declare that, by failing to adopt (or implement) and
Ð (alternatively) the Court did not attempt to clarify the             communicate all of the laws, regulations and
    uncertainty which itself found regarding the actual                administrative measures necessary in order to comply
    situation, since it did not appraise, discuss or, to an            fully with Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June
    extent, even mention the relevant evidence submitted               1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and
    by the plaintiff.                                                  administrative provisions relating to direct insurance
                                                                       other than life assurance and amending Directives 73/
                                                                       239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (third non-life insurance
                                                                       Directive) (1) and with Council Directive 92/96/EEC
(As to the existence of unusual and special damage)                    of 10 November 1992 on the coordination of laws,
                                                                       regulations and administrative provisions relating
                                                                       to direct life assurance and amending Directives 79/
Ð If a correct characterisation were made, the existence               267/EEC and 90/619/EEC (third life assurance
    of unusual and special damage would follow from the                Directive) (2), and, in particular, by omitting to
    Court's findings of fact.                                          transpose those directives as regards mutuelles reÂgies
                                                                       par le code de la mutualiteÂ', the French Republic has
                                                                       failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and
(As to the alternative claim for compensation for damage               under those Directives,
resulting from an unlawful act)
                                                                   Ð order the French Republic to pay the costs.
Ð The Court's view that the claim made in the
    application cannot be based on the applicant's
    alternative ground regarding the amount of the                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    damage, because a claim for compensation for a
    lawful act does not exist on the merits, is based on an
    error of law. The plaintiff, which did not make an             The transposition by France of Directives 92/49/EEC
    alternative plea in law but which, as is clear from the        and 92/96/EEC is incomplete, since it does not extend
    documents before the Court, merely submitted an                to mutuelles reÂgies par le code de la mutualiteÂ' in
    alternative ground for its plea, has, contrary to the          accordance with Article 8 of Directives 73/239/EEC (3) and
    Court's view, on the merits at least a claim for               79/267/EEC (4). Mere communication of a draft law which
    damages for a lawful act and can therefore claim               has not yet been adopted and is still being discussed
    full damages in this case because the Community                with the economic operators concerned cannot constitute
 ---pagebreak--- 5.9.98                 EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 278/21
communication of transposition measures. The Directives            8 July 1998 by the Commission of the European
should have been transposed by no later than 1 July 1994.          Communities, represented by Maria Patakia and Bernard
                                                                   Mongin, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an
                                                                   address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
(1 ) OJ L 228, 11.2.1992, p. 1.
                                                                   Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
(2)  OJ L 360, 9.12.1992, p. 1.
(3)  OJ L 228, 16.8.1973, p. 3.
(4)  OJ L 63, 13.3.1979, p. 1.
                                                                   The Commission of the European Communities claims
                                                                   that the Court should:
                                                                   Ð declare that, by prohibiting the issue by banks
                                                                       established outside France of certificates of deposit
References for preliminary rulings by Juzgado de Primera               and issues of Euro-bonds in French francs for an
Instancia No 35, Barcelona, by orders of that court of                 initial term of less than one year, as well as issues of
31 March 1998 (first two cases) and of 1 April 1998 in                 national bonds for an initial term of less than three
the cases of OceÂano Grupo Editorial SA and Others and                 months, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
               R. Murciano Quintero and Others                         obligations under Article 73b of the EC Treaty,
             (Joined Cases C-240/98 to C-244/98)                       Article 59 of the EC Treaty and Council Directive 89/
                                                                       646/EEC (1),
                          (98/C 278/35)
                                                                   Ð order the French Republic to pay the costs.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by orders of Juzgado de Primera
Instancia (Court of First Instance) No 35, Barcelona, of
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
31 March 1998 (in the first two cases) and 1 April 1998,
which were received at the Court Registry on 8 July 1998,
for a preliminary ruling in the cases of OceÂano Grupo
Editorial SA and Others and R. Murciano Quintero (Case             Ð Infringement of Article 73b of the EC Treaty: the
C-240/98), Salvat Editores SA and J. M. SaÂnchez Alcón                 rules governing the Euro-franc market, adopted on
Prades (C-241/98), Salvat Editores SA and J. L. Copano                 19 November 1996 by the Issues Board, continue to
Badillo (C-242/98), Salvat Editores SA and M. Berroane                 provide that the term for which securities are issued in
(C-243/98), and Salvat Editores SA and E. VinÄas Feliu                 the context of an issue on the Euro-franc market may
(C-244/98), on the following question:                                 not be less than one year. The rule prohibiting banks
                                                                       established outside France from issuing certificates of
                                                                       deposit and short-term securities in francs constitutes a
Whether the scope of the consumer protection provided by               restriction on the free movement of capital, contrary
Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) on unfair terms in                     to Article 73b of the EC Treaty,
consumer contracts is such that the national court may
consider of its own motion whether a term is unfair when
making its preliminary assessment as to whether leave              Ð Infringement of Article 59 and of Directive 89/646/
should be granted for a claim to proceed before the                    EEC: since the issue by banks of certificates of deposit
ordinary courts.                                                       or of bonds constitutes a service within the meaning of
                                                                       Article 60 of the EC Treaty, Article 59 precludes the
(1) OJ L 95, 21.4.1993, p. 29.                                         application of national rules of any kind which, in the
                                                                       absence of any objective justification, restrict the
                                                                       possible exercise by a supplier of services of his
                                                                       freedom to provide such a service. By prohibiting
                                                                       banks which are not established in France from issuing
                                                                       securities in the same way as domestic banks, which
                                                                       may freely do so, the measures complained of also
                                                                       constitute restrictions on freedom to provide banking
Action brought on 8 July 1998 by the Commission of the                 services, contrary to Article 59 of the EC Treaty and
     European Communities against the French Republic                  Article 18(1) of Directive 89/646/EEC, which confers
                                                                       on all banks within the Community freedom to
                        (Case C-245/98)
                                                                       provide cross-border banking services.
                          (98/C 278/36)
                                                                   (1) OJ L 386, 30.12.1989, p. 1.
An action against the French Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on


title: Case C-271/16 P: Appeal brought on 13 May 2016 by Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd, Panalpina Management AG, Panalpina China Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 29 February 2016 in Case T-270/12: Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd and Others v European Commission

text:
               4.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/27

         Appeal brought on 13 May 2016 by Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd, Panalpina Management AG, Panalpina China Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 29 February 2016 in Case T-270/12: Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd and Others v European Commission
   (Case C-271/16 P)
   (2016/C 243/27)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd, Panalpina Management AG, Panalpina China Ltd (represented by: S. Mobley, A. Stratakis, A. Gamble, Solicitors)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the contested judgment, insofar as it dismisses the Appellants’ first plea in respect of the infringements;

               —

               vary Articles 2(2) and 2(3) of the Decision of 28 March 2012 in case COMP/39462 – Freight Forwarding (the ‘Decision’) insofar as those provisions concern the Appellants and, exercising its unlimited jurisdiction, reduce the fines imposed on the Appellants; and

               —

               in any event, order the Commission to pay its own costs and the Appellants’ costs in connection with these proceedings and those before the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   When satisfying itself that the Commission did not depart from its decision-making practice, make an error of law, or infringe the principles of proportionality and equal treatment, the General Court erred in law by manifestly exceeding the limits of a reasonable assessment of the evidence before it and misapplying relevant case law. The Appellants’ specific pleas in law are as follows:

               1.

               That the General Court erred in law by manifestly exceeding the limits of a reasonable assessment of the evidence as to whether the infringements in question, and the AMS and CAF infringements in particular, related to the entirety of the freight forwarding ‘package of services’.

               2.

               That the General Court erred in law by not applying the case law principle that, for an infringement related to a component of a product or service, the Commission should only take into account sales attributable to that component.


title: Case C-240/13: Order of the President of the Court of 18 August 2014  — European Commission v Republic of Estonia supported by: Federal Republic of Germany, Kingdom of Belgium, Kingdom of the Netherlands, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Republic of Poland, Republic of Finland, Kingdom of Sweden

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/31

         Order of the President of the Court of 18 August 2014 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia supported by: Federal Republic of Germany, Kingdom of Belgium, Kingdom of the Netherlands, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Republic of Poland, Republic of Finland, Kingdom of Sweden
   (Case C-240/13) (1)

   2014/C 409/43
   Language of the case: Estonian
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 189, 29.6.2013.


title: Action brought on 13 October 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland (Case C-352/97)

text:
C 357/24                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                       22 . 11 . 97
The Commission claims that the Court should :                              comply with Council Directive 92/104/EEC of
                                                                           3 December ' 1992 concerning the minimum
— declare that, by failing to bring into force within                      requirements for improving the safety and health
     the prescribed period the laws, regulations and                       protection of workers in the mineral-extracting
     administrative provisions necessary to comply with                    industries (') and/or by failing to inform the
                                                                           Commission thereof,
     Council Directive 94/28/EC of 23 June 1994 laying
     down the principles relating to the zootechnical and
     genealogical conditions applicable to imports from                    and
     third countries of animals, their semen, ova and
     embryos, and amending Directive 77/504/EEC on                    — order Ireland to bear the costs of the procedure.
     pure-bred breeding animals of the bovine species ( ! ),
     the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil
     its obligations pursuant to Article 13 of Directive 94/          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     28/EC,
                                                                      Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a Directive
— order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the                      shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each
     costs .                                                          Member State, carries by implication an obligation on the
                                                                      Member States to observe the period for compliance laid
                                                                      down in the Directive . That period expired on 3 December
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   1994 without Ireland having enacted the provisions
                                                                      necessary to comply with the Directive referred to in the
Under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the Treaty                conclusions of the Commission .
establishing the European Community, a Directive is
binding on each Member State to which it is addressed as              (') Council Directive 92/ 104/EEC of 3 December 1992 on the
to the result to be achieved. Under the first paragraph of                minimum requirements for improving the safety and health
Article 5 of the Treaty, Member States are to take all                    protection of workers in surface and underground mineral
appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to                   extracting industries ( 12th individual Directive within the
ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the                   meaning of Article 16 ( 1 ) of Directive 89/391 /EEC ( OJ L 404,
                                                                          31 . 12 . 1992 , p. 10 ).
Treaty or resulting from action taken by the institutions of
the Community. Under Article 13 of the Directive,
Member States are obliged to bring into force the laws,
regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
comply with the Directive by 1 July 1995 and inform the
Commission thereof forthwith . The Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg has not yet informed the Commission of any                 Action brought on 13 October 1997 by the Commission
measures it may have taken in accordance with that                             of the European Communities against Ireland
provision.                                                                                ( Case C-353/97)
                                                                                ( 97/C 357/44 )
(') OJ L 178 , 12 . 7. 1994, p . 66 .
                                                                      An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
                                                                      Justice of the European Communities on 13 October 1997
                                                                      by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                      represented by Mr Pieter Jan Kuijper, Legal Adviser, acting
Action brought on 13 October 1997 by the Commission                   as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
         of the European Communities against Ireland                  the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, member of its
                         ( Case C-352/97 )                            Legal Service, Centre Wagner, Kirchberg.
                           ( 97/C 357/43 )
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of             — find that Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations
Justice of the European Communities on 13 October 1997                     under the EC Treaty by failing to adopt the laws,
by the Commission of the European Communities,                             regulations or administrative provisions necessary
represented by Mr Pieter Jan Kuijper, Legal Adviser, acting                to comply with Council Directive 92/91 /EEC of
as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                     3 November 1992 concerning the minimum
the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, member of its                       requirements for improving the safety and health
Legal Service, Centre Wagner, Kirchberg.                                   protection of workers in the mineral-extracting
                                                                           industries through drilling ('), and/or by failing to
                                                                           inform the Commission thereof,
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           and
— find that Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations
    under the EC Treaty by failing to adopt the laws,
    regulations or administrative provisions necessary to             — order Ireland to bear the costs of the procedure .


title: Case T-112/11: Order of the General Court of 3 September 2014  — Schutzgemeinschaft Milch und Milcherzeugnisse eV v Commission (Action for annulment — Registration of a protected geographical indication — ‘Edam Holland’  — No interest in bringing proceedings — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               27.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 380/10

         Order of the General Court of 3 September 2014 — Schutzgemeinschaft Milch und Milcherzeugnisse eV v Commission
   (Case T-112/11) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Registration of a protected geographical indication - ‘Edam Holland’ - No interest in bringing proceedings - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility))
   2014/C 380/13
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Schutzgemeinschaft Milch und Milcherzeugnisse eV (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: M. Loschelder and V.Schoene, lawyers)

      Defendant: The European Commission (represented by: initially, G. von Rintelen and M. Vollkommer, then G. von Rintelen and F. Jimeno Fernández, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: The Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels, J. Langer, M. Noort, B. Koopman and M. Bulterman, acting as Agents); and Nederlandse Zuivelorganisatie (Zoetermeer, the Netherlands) (represented by: P. van Ginneken, F. Gerritzen and C. van Veen, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1121/2010 of 2 December 2010 entering a designation in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Edam Holland (PGI)] (OJ 2010 L 317, p. 14).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Schutzgemeinschaft Milch und Milcherzeugnisse eV shall bear their own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

               3.

               The Kingdom of the Netherlands and Nederlandse Zuivelorganisatie shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.


title: Case T-234/13: Order of the General Court of 7 July 2014  — Lucart France v Commission (Application for annulment — Environment — Directive 94/62/EC — Packaging and packaging waste — Directive 2013/2/EU — Rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material is wound — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/55

         Order of the General Court of 7 July 2014 — Lucart France v Commission
   (Case T-234/13) (1)

   ((Application for annulment - Environment - Directive 94/62/EC - Packaging and packaging waste - Directive 2013/2/EU - Rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material is wound - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility))
   2014/C 315/92
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Lucart France (Torvilliers, France) (represented by: J. M. Leprêtre and N. Chahid Nouraï, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and J. F. Brakeland, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for partial annulment of Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste (OJ 2013 L 37, p. 10), in so far as the Commission adds rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material is wound, with the exception of those intended as parts of production machinery and not used to present a product as a sales unit, to the list of examples of products illustrating the application of criteria that define the concept of ‘packaging’.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Lucart France is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.


               15.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/20

         Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur dated 19 March 2007 in the case of Jón Gunnar Þorkelsson v Gildi-lífeyrissjóður (Gildi Pension Fund)
   (Case E-4/07)
   (2007/C 272/08)
   A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter of 19 March 2007 from Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavík District Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 26 March 2007, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Jón Gunnar Þorkelsson v Gildi-lífeyrissjóður (Gildi Pension Fund), on the following questions:

               1.

               Does the term ‘social insurance’ as it is to be understood under the EEA Agreement, and in particular Article 29 of the main text of the Agreement and Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, cover the entitlement to disability benefit that arises in pension fund schemes such as the Icelandic one?

               2.

               Whether or not the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, the District Court asks whether the provisions of the EEA Agreement on the free movement of workers, and in particular Articles 28 and 29, can be interpreted as meaning that a rule in the Articles of Association of Icelandic pension funds which makes a specific benefit right (the right to projection of entitlements) subject to the condition that the individual involved has paid premiums to an Icelandic pension fund that is a party to the Agreement on Relations between the Pension Funds, for at least 6 of the 12 months preceding the date of an accident, is compatible with the EEA Agreement when the reason why the individual is unable to meet this condition is that he has moved to another State within the EEA in order to pursue employment comparable to that which he pursued previously, and he has paid into a pension fund in that State?

               3.

               Is Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971, on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, to be interpreted as meaning that workers are to present their compensation claims in the State in which they were resident and in which they had social security entitlements at the time of their injury?


title: Case C-385/12: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Székesfehérvári Törvényszék — Hungary) — Hervis Sport- és Divatkereskedelmi Kft v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Közép-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága (Request for a preliminary ruling — Direct taxation — Freedom of establishment — National tax legislation establishing an exceptional tax on the turnover of store retail trade — Retail store chains — Existence of a discriminatory effect — Indirect discrimination)

text:
               29.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/10

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Székesfehérvári Törvényszék — Hungary) — Hervis Sport- és Divatkereskedelmi Kft v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Közép-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága
   (Case C-385/12) (1)

   (Request for a preliminary ruling - Direct taxation - Freedom of establishment - National tax legislation establishing an exceptional tax on the turnover of store retail trade - Retail store chains - Existence of a discriminatory effect - Indirect discrimination)
   2014/C 93/15
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Székesfehérvári Törvényszék

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Hervis Sport- és Divatkereskedelmi Kft

      Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Közép-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Székesfehérvári Törvényszék — Interpretation of Articles 18 TFEU, 26 TFEU, 49 TFEU, 54 TFEU, 55 TFEU, 56 TFEU, 63 TFEU, 65 TFEU and 110 TFEU — National tax legislation creating a special tax on the store retail trade sector — Progressive tax calculated on the basis of net turnover — Threshold tax rate resulting in greater impact on retail food trade undertakings owned by foreigners than on those owned by nationals.

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 49 TFEU and 54 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State relating to tax on the turnover of store retail trade which obliges taxable legal persons constituting, within a group, ‘linked undertakings’ within the meaning of that legislation, to aggregate their turnover for the purpose of the application of a steeply progressive rate, and then to divide the resulting amount of tax among them in proportion to their actual turnover, if — and it is for the referring court to determine whether this is the case — the taxable persons covered by the highest band of the special tax are ‘linked’, in the majority of cases, to companies which have their registered office in another Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 366, 24.11.2012.


24 . 6 . 95            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                              No C 159/29
— annul the decision of 20 July 1994 drawing up the                          Removal from the register of Case T-445/93 ( )
     applicant's staff report for the period 1992 to 1993 and                                     ( 95/C 159/60 )
     all subsequent decisions adopted on the basis of that
     report,
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
— annul, to the extent necessary, the decision of
     10 February 1995 expressly rejecting the applicant's             By order of 6 April 1 995 the President of the Fourth
    complaint, and                                                    Chamber (extended composition ) of the Court of First
                                                                      Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                              from the register of Case T-445/93 : Eastern Electricity pic,
                                                                      East Midlands Electricity pic, Electricity Association
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   Services Limited, London Electricity pic, Manweb pic,
The applicant, an official of the Court of Auditors of grade          Midlands Electricity pic, National Power pic, Northern
A 5 and President of the Staff Committee of that institution          Electric pic, Norweb pic, PowerGen pic, Seeboard pic,
at the material time, complains that the appointing                   Southern Electric pic, South Wales Electricity pic, South
authority failed to observe certain principles of law when            Western Electricity pic, The National Grid Company pic
drawing up his staff report for the period 1992 to 1993 .             and Yorkshire Electricity Group pic v . Council of the
                                                                      European Union and Commission of the European
He argues that it was contrary to Article 43 of the Staff             Communities .
Regulations and general implementing provisions for his
staff report to have been drawn up by the head of his original        f 1 ) OJ No C 57, 4 . 3 . 1992 .
department when, during the material time, he had been
placed at the disposal of the Staff Committee on a full-time
basis .
Moreover, since the general implementing provisions
provide that the Secretary-General is, in the event of an                      Removal from the register of Case T-8/94 H
appeal, competent only in respect of those officials assessed                                       95/C 159/61 )
who are directly under the authority of the director of a
preparatory group, which is not the case of the Staff
Committee , it is contrary to those provisions for his                                (Language of tbe case: French)
definitive staff report to have been drawn up by the
Secretary-General .                                                   By order of 10 May 1995 the President of the Second
                                                                      Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Finally, the applicant stresses the fact that over the period in      Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
question his immediate superior could not have taken                  T-8/94 : H. v. Commission of the European
account of developments in his merits since his last staff            Communities .
report, given that the duties undertaken by the Staff
Committee form an integral part of the services which                 f 1 ) OJ No C 59 , 26 . 2 . 1994 .
officials are required to ensure .
        Removal from the register of Case T-20/93 C )                        Removal from the register of Case T- 1 88/94 ( 1 )
                         ( 95/C 159/59 )                                                          ( 95/C 159/62
                (Language of the case: Frencb)                                       (Language of the case: Frencb)
By order of 5 April 1995 the President of the Third Chamber           By order of 7 April 1995 the President of the Second
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities            Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
ordered the removal from the register of Case T-20/93 :               Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
Willy Seghers v . Council of the European Union.                      T-l 88/94: Nathalie Creste v . Council of the European
                                                                      Union .
(M OJ No C 89 , 31 . 3 . 1993 .
                                                                      f 1 ) OJ No C 174 , 25 . 6 . 1994 .


title: Case C-245/07: Order of the President of the Court of 5 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/39

         Order of the President of the Court of 5 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-245/07) (1)

   (2008/C 51/71)

      Language of the case: German

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

      (1)  OJ C 155, 7.7.2007.


               16.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 176/10

         Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Verwaltungsgerichtshof des Fürstentums Liechtenstein dated 14 February 2011 in the case of Arnulf Clauder
   (Case E-4/11)
   2011/C 176/08
   A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter of 14 February 2011 from Verwaltungsgerichtshof des Fürstentums Liechtenstein (the Administrative Court of the Principality of Liechtenstein), which was received at the Court Registry on 16 February 2011, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Arnulf Clauder, on the following questions:

               1.

               Is Directive 2004/38/EC, in particular Article 16(1) in conjunction with Article 7(1), to be interpreted such that a Union citizen with a right of permanent residence, who is a pensioner and in receipt of social welfare benefits in the host Member State, may claim the right to family reunification even if the family member will also be claiming social welfare benefits?

               2.

               Is it of relevance for the answer to Question 1, whether the Union citizen with a right of permanent residence was employed or self-employed in the host Member State prior to attaining retirement age?

               3.

               Is it of relevance for the answer to Question 1, whether the family member will be employed or self-employed in the host Member State and still be claiming social welfare benefits?


title: Case C-114/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg, Brussels lodged on 3 March 2010 — Belpolis Benelux SA v Belgische Staat

text:
               22.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/22

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg, Brussels lodged on 3 March 2010 — Belpolis Benelux SA v Belgische Staat
   (Case C-114/10)
   2010/C 134/33
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank van eerste aanleg, Brussels

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Belpolis Benelux SA

      Defendant: Belgische Staat

      Question referred

               1.

               Does Community law, in particular the principle of the freedom to provide services as laid down in Article 56 TFEU, preclude rules such as those laid down in Articles 1 and 1a of Belgian Royal Decree No 20 of 20 July 1970, under which the reduced rate of VAT (6 %) may be applied to construction work only if the service provider is registered in Belgium as a contractor in accordance with Articles 400 and 401 of the Wetboek van Inkomstenbelastingen (Belgian Income Tax Code) 1992?

               2.

               Do the provisions contained in Article 1 and 1a of Royal Decree No 20 of 20 July 1970 contravene the principle of fiscal neutrality and/or the general Community law principle of equal treatment by allowing the reduced rate of VAT (6 %) on construction work to apply only if the service provider is registered as a contractor in Belgium in accordance with Articles 400 and 401 of the Belgian Income Tax Code 1992?


title: Case C-265/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Kammarrätten i Sundsvall by order of that court of 17 June 2004 in the case of Margaretha Bouanich against the Skatteverket

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/22

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Kammarrätten i Sundsvall by order of that court of 17 June 2004 in the case of Margaretha Bouanich against the Skatteverket
   (Case C-265/04)
   (2004/C 228/43)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Kammarrätten i Sundsvall (Sundsvall Administrative Court of Appeal) (Sweden) of 17 June 2004, received at the Court Registry on 24 June 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Margaretha Bouanich against the Skatteverket (Local Tax Board), Gävle office on the following questions:

               1.

               Do Articles 56 EC and 58 EC permit a Member State to tax a payment in respect of a share repurchase, paid out by a limited company in the Member State, in the same way as a dividend, without there being a right to deduct the cost of acquisition of the repurchased share, if the payment is made to a shareholder who is not domiciled or permanently resident in the Member State, whereas a share repurchase payment made by such a limited company to a shareholder domiciled or permanently resident in the Member State is instead taxed as if it were a capital gain, with a right to deduct the cost of acquisition of the repurchased share?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is no: When the double taxation agreement between the Member State in which the limited company has its registered office and the Member State in which the shareholder is resident provides, with reference to the commentaries on the OECD Model Tax Convention, that there is to be a lower rate of taxation than that applied to a share repurchase payment made to a shareholder in the first Member State and a shareholder in the second Member State and also permits a deduction corresponding to the nominal value of the repurchased shares, do the articles mentioned in the previous question permit, in those circumstances, a Member State to apply a rule such as that set out above?

               3.

               Do Articles 43 EC and 48 EC permit a Member State to apply a rule such as that set out above?


title: Case F-31/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 3 May 2016 — Noël v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Pensions — Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Pension rights acquired, prior to entering the service of the EU, under a national pension scheme — Transfer to the EU pension scheme — Initial proposal concerning the crediting of pensionable years, made by the appointing authority and accepted by the person concerned — Withdrawal of that proposal — New proposal based on new general implementing provisions — Objection of inadmissibility — Concept of an act having adverse effect — Article 83 of the Rules of Procedure)

text:
               20.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 222/41

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 3 May 2016 — Noël v Commission
   (Case F-31/12) (1)

   ((Civil service - Officials - Pensions - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Pension rights acquired, prior to entering the service of the EU, under a national pension scheme - Transfer to the EU pension scheme - Initial proposal concerning the crediting of pensionable years, made by the appointing authority and accepted by the person concerned - Withdrawal of that proposal - New proposal based on new general implementing provisions - Objection of inadmissibility - Concept of an act having adverse effect - Article 83 of the Rules of Procedure))
   (2016/C 222/53)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Marc Noël (Bergen, the Netherlands) (represented by: initially, D. de Abreu Caldas, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal and S. Orlandi, lawyers, then D. de Abreu Caldas, J.-N. Louis and S. Orlandi, lawyers, and lastly, J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, D. Martin and J. Baquero Cruz, Agents, then J. Currall and G. Gattinara, Agents, then G. Gattinara, Agent, and lastly, G. Gattinara and F. Simonetti, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decisions to transfer the pension rights acquired prior to entering the service of the Commission on the basis of the PMO’s recalculated proposition.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Marc Noël shall bear his own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 133, 5/5/2012, p. 31.


C 158/28                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            5.7.2003
—      Infringement of Directive 91/414 (2) and Regulation                         Removal from the register of Case T-297/00 (1)
       No 3600/92 ( 3), in so far as the Commission requires that
       each of the notifying parties submit a complete dossier                                     (2003/C 158/51)
       when presenting a notification collectively with other
       notifiers of active substances and send such complete                                  (Language of the case: French)
       dossier to the defendant within the time-limit referred to
       in Article 6(1) of Regulation No 3600/92. It is also
       contrary to that provision for the defendant institution to
                                                                           By order of 2 April 2003 the President of the First Chamber,
       assume that the applicant is not able to submit data
                                                                           Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the
       relating to the evaluation of metalaxyl. The applicant
                                                                           European Communities ordered the removal from the register
       company therefore takes the view that the contested
                                                                           of Case T-297/00: Company Claude-Anne de Solène v Council
       decision contradicts the interpretation made by the
                                                                           of the European Union and Commission of the European
       Commission itself concerning use of the studies provided
                                                                           Communities.
       by Syngenta in the drawing up of the report by the
       rapporteur Member State.
                                                                           (1 ) OJ C 355, 09.12.2000.
—      Infringement of the principle of proportionality. In this
       regard, the applicant would point out, in particular, the
       fact that the effect of the contested decision consists in
       excluding it from the European market when its scientific
       analysis has not even been completed.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-159/01 (1)
—      Misuse of powers, inasmuch as, in the applicant’s view,
       the purpose of the Commission is none other than to
       favour an undertaking which is its direct competitor.                                       (2003/C 158/52)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
( 1) OJ 2003 L 113, p. 8.
( 2) Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the
     placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 1991
     L 230, p. 1).                                                         By order of 31 March 2003 the Court of        First Instance of the
( 3) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992            European Communities (Sole Judge: R.           M. Moura Ramos)
     laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first    ordered the removal from the register          of Case T-159/01:
     stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8 (2) of        Christopher Wilkinson v Commission of         the European Com-
     Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant          munities.
     protection products on the market (OJ 1992 L 366, p. 10).
                                                                           (1 ) OJ C 275, 29.09.2001.


title: Case C-408/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Aliny Wojciechowski v Office national des pensions (ONP) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Retired EU official who has, prior to entering the service, pursued an activity in an employed capacity in the Member State in which she is posted — Pension rights by virtue of the national pension scheme for employed persons — Occupational record unit — Refusal to pay the retirement pension for employed persons — Principle of sincere cooperation)

text:
               3.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 363/17

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Aliny Wojciechowski v Office national des pensions (ONP)
   (Case C-408/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Retired EU official who has, prior to entering the service, pursued an activity in an employed capacity in the Member State in which she is posted - Pension rights by virtue of the national pension scheme for employed persons - Occupational record unit - Refusal to pay the retirement pension for employed persons - Principle of sincere cooperation))
   (2015/C 363/20)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Aliny Wojciechowski

      Defendant: Office national des pensions (ONP)

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 4(3) TEU, in conjunction with the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, established by Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 of the Council of 29 February 1968 laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities and instituting special measures temporarily applicable to officials of the Commission, as amended by Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1080/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which may give rise to the reduction or refusal of a retirement pension payable to an employed person who is a national of that Member State by virtue of the service performed, in accordance with its legislation, where the total number of years of the occupational record acquired by him as an employed person in that Member State and as an EU official posted in that Member State exceeds the ‘occupational record unit’ of 45 years referred to in that legislation, in so far as, owing to the method used to calculate the fraction representing the size of the pension payable by the European Union, that reduction is greater than it would have been had he acquired the whole of his occupational record as an employed person in the Member State in question.

      (1)  OJ C 421, 24.11.2014.


title: Case T-126/08: Order of the Court of First Instance of 10 February 2009 — Okalux v OHIM — Ondex (ONDACELL) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Failure to pay the opposition fee — Decision deeming the opposition non-existent — Action manifestly devoid of any legal basis)

text:
               4.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/24

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 10 February 2009 — Okalux v OHIM — Ondex (ONDACELL)
   (Case T-126/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Failure to pay the opposition fee - Decision deeming the opposition non-existent - Action manifestly devoid of any legal basis)
   (2009/C 82/43)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Okalux GmbH (Marktheidenfeld, Germany) (represented by: M. Beckensträter, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Ondex SAS (Chevigny-Saint-Sauveur, France)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 January 2008 (Case R 1384/2007-4) regarding opposition proceedings between Okalux GmbH and Ondex SAS.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Okalux GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 116, 9.5.2008.


17.7.1999              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 204/37
        Removal from the register of Case C-27/97 (1)                         Removal from the register of Case C-7/99 P (1)
                          (1999/C 204/86)                                                     (1999/C 204/90)
By order of 30 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                       By order of 30 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                       of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-27/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                       the register of Case C-7/99 P: Franco Campoli v Commission
from the Tribunale di Genova): Ligure Piemontese SpA (Società
                                                                       of the European Communities.
d’Intermediazione Mobiliare) v Amministrazione delle Finanze
dello Stato.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.
( 1) OJ C 74 of 8.3.1997.
        Removal from the register of Case C-28/97 (1)                         Removal from the register of Case C-326/98 (1)
                          (1999/C 204/87)                                                     (1999/C 204/91)
By order of 30 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from               By order of 6 May 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
the register of Case C-28/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling       of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
from the Tribunale di Genova): SO.ME.FI Srl v Amministra-              the register of Case C-326/98: Commission of the European
zione delle Finanze dello Stato.                                       Communities v French Republic.
(1) OJ C 74 of 8.3.1997.                                               (1) OJ C 312 of 10.10.1998.
        Removal from the register of Case C-29/97 (1)
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-320/98 (1)
                          (1999/C 204/88)
                                                                                (1999/C 204/92)
By order of 30 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-29/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling       By order of 7 May 1999 the President of the Third Chamber
from the Tribunale di Genova): Società Anonima Immobiliare             of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has
Allessandro Srl (SAIA) v Amministrazione delle Finanze dello           ordered the removal from the register of Case C-320/98:
Stato.                                                                 Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of
                                                                       Luxembourg.
(1) OJ C 74 of 8.3.1997.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.
        Removal from the register of Case C-30/97 (1)
                          (1999/C 204/89)                                     Removal from the register of Case C-73/98 (1)
By order of 30 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from                                      (1999/C 204/93)
the register of Case C-30/97 (reference for a preliminary
ruling from the Tribunale di Genova): SVIN Servizi SpA v               By order of 10 May 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato.                             of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                       the register of Case C-73/98: Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
(1) OJ C 74 of 8.3.1997.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 151 of 16.5.1998.


title: Case C-299/08: Action brought on 4 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/7

         Action brought on 4 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
   (Case C-299/08)
   (2008/C 272/08)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Rozet and D. Kukovec, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: French Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by adopting and keeping in force Articles 73 and 74-IV of the Code des marchés publics (Public Procurement Code) adopted by Decree No 2006-975 of 1 August 2006, inasmuch as those provisions lay down a procedure for the award of marchés de definition (public contracts for designing the parameters, including the purpose, of a public works, supply or service contract) under which it is possible for the awarding authority to award a public works, supply or service contract to one of the holders of the initial marchés de definition without opening it afresh to competition or, at most, by opening it to competition limited to those holders, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 28 and 31 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (1);

               —

               order the French Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By its action, the Commission alleges that the defendant permits the award of contracts on the basis of mutual agreement — or with limited competition — in situations not provided for by Directive 2004/18/EC. By drawing a distinction between marchés de definition and public works, supply or service contracts and by allowing, in certain circumstances, the award of the latter contracts to one of the holders of the initial marchés de definition without again opening them to competition or, at the very least, by opening them to competition limited only to those holders, the French legislation disregards the fundamental principles of equality and transparency inherent to Directive 2004/18/EC. In the Commission's view, it is impossible by definition for the subject-matter and criteria for the award of a public procurement contract to be known precisely before the project itself has been defined. The marché de definition and the public works, supply or service contract are two entirely distinct types of public procurement contract, each having its own subject-matter and criteria for award and, on those grounds, they must both comply with the stipulations of Directive 2004/18/EC.

      (1)  OJ L 134, p. 114.


title: Case C-523/03: Action brought on 15 December 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against Biotrast AE, Anonimi Eteria Tekhnologion Aikhmis

text:
C 59/6                  EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                        6.3.2004
Court taken into account that neither the former rules nor the            Action brought on 16 December 2003 by the Commission
new Regulations include a reference to audits. The audit                  of the European Communities against G. & E. Gianniotis
proposed by ECHO had a discriminatory character in so far as                         EPE, trading as ‘Nosokomio Agia Eleni’
there was no justification given for undertaking such an audit
once the German Foreign Office had confirmed the legal status
of IH as a charitable organisation.                                                                (Case C-524/03)
                                                                                (2004/C 59/10)
(1) OJ C 31, 8.2.2003, p. 21.
(2) of the Council, of 20 June 1996, concerning humanitarian aid (OJ
    L 163, 2.7.1996, p. 1).
                                                                          An action against G. &. E. Gianniotis EPE, trading as ‘Nosoko-
                                                                          mio Agia Eleni’ was brought before the Court of Justice of
                                                                          the European Communities on 16 December 2003 by the
                                                                          Commission of the European Communities, represented by
                                                                          Dimitri Triandafilou of its Legal Service, assisted by Nicolao
                                                                          Korogiannakis, of the Athens Bar, with an address for service
                                                                          in Luxembourg.
Action brought on 15 December 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against Biotrast AE, Anoni-
               mi Eteria Tekhnologion Aikhmis                             The applicant claims that the Court should order the defendant:
                                                                          (a)   to pay the amount of EUR 236 977,73, comprising the
                          (Case C-523/03)
                                                                                principal sum of EUR 212 010,17 and daily interest of
                                                                                EUR 24 697,76 from the date of each debit note until
                           (2004/C 59/09)                                       31 October 2003;
                                                                          (b) to pay interest in the amount of EUR 42,16 per day as
                                                                                from 31 October 2003 until payment in full of the debt;
An action against Biotrast AE, Anonomi Eteria Tekhnologion
Aikhmis, was brought before the Court of Justice of the                   (c)   to pay the costs.
European Communities on 15 December 2003 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities, represented by Dimitris
Triantafillou, of its Legal Service, and by Nikolaos Koroyian-
nakis, of the Athens Bar, with an address for service in                  Pleas in law and main arguments
Luxembourg. The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          (a)   Liability to repay the amount unduly paid by the Com-
                                                                                mission;
order the defendant:
                                                                          (b) Date on which interest became payable.
(a)   to pay the amount of EUR 730 726,81, representing a
      capital sum of EUR 661 838,82 and daily interest of EUR
      68 887,99, from the date on which the debit note fell
      due with interest at 4,77 % until 31.12.2002 and 6,77 %
      from 11.2003;
(b) to pay interest in the amount of EUR 122,75 per day
      from 31.10.2003 until the debt is repaid in full;                   Action brought on 16 December 2003 by the Commission
                                                                          of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
(c)   to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Case C-525/03)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                     (2004/C 59/11)
(a)   There is an obligation to repay the amount unduly paid
      by the Commission.
                                                                          An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
(b) The date on which interest became payable.                            Court of Justice of the European Communities on 16 December
                                                                          2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                          represented by Klaus Wiedner and Claudio Loggi, acting as
                                                                          Agents.


title: Case C-604/15 P: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 July 2016 — Ana Pérez Gutiérrez v European Commission (Appeal — Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Article 181 — Non-contractual liability of the European Union — Public health — Photographs proposed by the European Commission for the health warnings to be shown on packaging for tobacco products — Unauthorised use of the image of a deceased person)

text:
               19.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/15

         Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 July 2016 — Ana Pérez Gutiérrez v European Commission
   (Case C-604/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Article 181 - Non-contractual liability of the European Union - Public health - Photographs proposed by the European Commission for the health warnings to be shown on packaging for tobacco products - Unauthorised use of the image of a deceased person))
   (2016/C 343/23)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Ana Pérez Gutiérrez (represented by: J. Soler Puebla, abogado)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and J. Tomkin, Agents)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mrs Ana Pérez Gutiérrez shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.


title: Case C-351/13: Action brought on 25 June 2013 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

text:
               7.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/27

         Action brought on 25 June 2013 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-351/13)
   2013/C 260/48
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Markoulli and B. Schima)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to ensure that from 1 January 2012 laying hens are no longer reared in unenriched cage systems, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 and Article 5(2) of Council Directive 1999/74/EC (1) of 19 July 1999 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Article 5(2) of Directive 1999/74/EC prohibits the rearing of laying hens in unenriched cage systems from 1 January 2012. In addition, Article 3 of Directive 1999/74/EC provides that the Member States are obliged to ensure that owners and holders apply in respect of laying hens only the rearing systems that are permitted by the directive.
   The Commission directed the Member States’ attention to their obligations to comply with the abovementioned provisions of the directive from 2011. In accordance with the information which was supplied by the Hellenic Republic, it was clear that a significant number of owners and holders of establishments with laying hens would not be able to comply with the Hellenic Republic’s obligations under Directive 1999/74/EC by the date for compliance which is laid down by that directive.
   It is apparent from the information which the Hellenic Republic has provided in the pre-litigation procedure and from more recent updates of that information that the Hellenic Republic has still not succeeded in complying with its obligations under Article 3 and Article 5(2) of Directive 1999/74/EC.

      (1)  OJ 1999 L 203, p. 53.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber) of 15 July 1998 in Case T-115/94 (92): Opel Austria GmbH v. Council of the European Union (Taxation of costs)

text:
7.11.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 340/21
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            of publication of the decision and for damages in respect
                      (Fourth Chamber)                               of the losses incurred as a result thereof, the Court
                                                                     (Second Chamber) composed of: A. Kalogeropoulos,
                        of 15 July 1998                              President, C. W. Bellamy and J. Pirrung, Judges; Registrar:
in Case T-115/94 (92): Opel Austria GmbH v. Council of               H. Jung, made an order on 15 September 1998, the
                   the European Union (1)                            operative part of which is as follows:
                      (Taxation of costs)                            1. the application is dismissed;
                         (98/C 340/39)
                                                                     2. the applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                     (1) OJ C 229 of 2.9.1995.
In Case T-115/94 (92): Opel Austria GmbH, formerly
General Motors Austria GmbH, whose registered office is
in Vienna, represented by Dirk Vandermeersch, of the
Brussels Bar, and Till Müller-Ibold, Rechtsanwalt,
Frankfurt am Main, with an address for service in                         ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt and Medernach,                                      of 21 September 1998
8Ð10 rue Mathias Hardt, against Council of the
                                                                     in Case T-237/97: Nicolaos Progoulis v. Commission of
European Union (Agents: Bjarne Hoff-Nielsen, Hans-
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
Jürgen Rabe and Georg M. Berrisch) Ð application for
taxation of costs made following the judgment of the                                    (Manifest inadmissibility)
Court of First Instance of 22 January 1997 in Case T-115/
                                                                                (98/C 340/41)
94 Opel Austria v. Council [1997] ECR II-39 Ð the Court
of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Lindh, President, K. Lenaerts and J. D. Cooke, Judges; H.
Jung, Registrar, made an order on 15 July 1998, the                  In Case T-237/97: Nicolaos Progoulis, an official of the
operative part of which is as follows:                               Commission of the European Communities, residing in
                                                                     Brussels, represented by Vassilis Akritidis and
The total amount of the costs to be paid by the Council to           Konstantinos Adamantopoulos, of the Athens Bar, with an
the applicant is fixed at BFR 4 000 000.                             address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                     ArseÁne Kronshagen, 12 Boulevard de la Foire, v.
(1) OJ C 132 of 14.5.1994.                                           Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                                                                     Gianluigi Valsesia, Julian Currall and Florence Clotuche)
                                                                     Ð application for annulment of the Commission's
                                                                     decision of 13 May 1997 rejecting the applicant's
                                                                     complaint against the decision rejecting his request for a
                                                                     review of his classification Ð the Court of First Instance
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            (First Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President,
                    of 15 September 1998                             and J. Pirrung and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung,
                                                                     Registrar, made an order on 21 September 1998, the
in Case T-136/95, Industria del Frio Auxiliar Conservera
                                                                     operative part of which is as follows:
 SA against Commission of the European Communities (1)
(Health policy Ð Protective measures Ð Decision 95/119/              1. the application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible;
EC Ð Principle of legal certainty Ð Principle of the
protection of legitimate expectations Ð Principle of                 2. the applicant shall bear his own costs.
proportionality Ð Principle of equal treatment Ð
         Statement of reasons Ð Misuse of powers)                    (1) OJ C 7 of 10.1.1998.
                         (98/C 340/40)
              (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                          ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
In Case T-136/95, Industria del Frio Auxiliar Conservera
SA, established in Bermeo (Spain), represented by Ignacio                                 of 9 September 1998
SaÂenz-Cortabarría FernaÂndez and Marta Morales Isasi, of            in Case T-269/97: Azienda Agricola Tre e Mezzo v.
the Vizcaya Bar, with an address for service in                             Commission of the European Communities (1)
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Guy Harles, 8Ð10 rue
Mathias Hardt, against the Commission of the European                (Agriculture Ð Action for annulment of a regulation
Communities (Agents: JoseÂ Luis Iglesias Buhigues and                       having general application Ð Inadmissibility)
Blanca Vila Costa), relating to an application for                                            (98/C 340/42)
annulment of Commission Decision 95/119/EC of 7 April
1995 concerning certain protective measures with regard                              (Language of the case: Italian)
to fishery products originating in Japan (OJ L 80 of
8.4.1995, p. 56) to the extent that those measures relate            In Case T-269/97: Azienda Agricola Tre e Mezzo,
to fishery products en route to the Community at the time            established at Forlì (Italy), and Carlo Bazzocchi, residing


title: Case C-288/13 P: Appeal brought on 27 May 2013 by Rütgers Germany GmbH, Rütgers Belgium NV, Deza, a.s., Industrial Química del Nalón, SA, Bilbaína de Alquitranes, SA against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 7 March 2013 in Case T-94/10: Rütgers Germany GmbH and others v European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/16

         Appeal brought on 27 May 2013 by Rütgers Germany GmbH, Rütgers Belgium NV, Deza, a.s., Industrial Química del Nalón, SA, Bilbaína de Alquitranes, SA against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 7 March 2013 in Case T-94/10: Rütgers Germany GmbH and others v European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)
   (Case C-288/13 P)
   2013/C 252/24
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Rütgers Germany GmbH, Rütgers Belgium NV, Deza, a.s., Industrial Química del Nalón, SA, Bilbaína de Alquitranes, SA (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, avocat)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-94/10; and

               —

               annul Decision ED/68/2009 of the European Chemicals Agency (‘ECHA’) (the ‘Contested Decision’) identifying Anthracene oil as a substance to be included on the Candidate List in accordance with Article 59 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (‘REACH’) (1), or

               —

               alternatively, refer the case back to the General Court to rule on the appellants’ application for annulment; and
               order the respondent to pay all the costs of these proceedings (including the costs before the General Court).

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellants submit that, in dismissing their application for partial annulment in respect of the contested decision, the General Court breached Community law. In particular, the appellants contend that the General Court committed a number of errors in its interpretation of the legal framework as applicable to the appellants’ situation. That resulted in the General Court making a number of errors in law; in particular:

               —

               in finding that the case related to complex scientific and technical facts and that the identification of anthracene oil as having PBT and vPvB properties on the basis of its constituents present in a concentration of at least 0.1% was not vitiated by a manifest error;

               —

               the constituents do not have to be individually identified as having PBT or vPvB properties in a separate ECHA decision based on a thorough assessment for that purpose;

               —

               Article 59(3) and Annex XV of REACH were not breached because information on alternative substances was not included in the Annex XV dossier; and

               —

               that there was no breach of the principle of equal treatment

         For these reasons the appellants claim that the judgment of the General Court in Case T-94/10 should be set aside and the contested decision should be annulled.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC, OJ L 396, p. 1


title: Case C-226/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 July 2016 — Apple and Pear Australia Ltd, Star Fruits Diffusion v European Union Intellectual Property Office, Carolus C. BVBA (Appeal — EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark English pink — Opposition by the proprietor of the word mark PINK LADY and the figurative marks including the word elements ‘Pink Lady’ — Opposition dismissed — Decision of an EU trade mark court — Alteration — Res judicata)

text:
               19.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/7

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 July 2016 — Apple and Pear Australia Ltd, Star Fruits Diffusion v European Union Intellectual Property Office, Carolus C. BVBA
   (Case C-226/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark English pink - Opposition by the proprietor of the word mark PINK LADY and the figurative marks including the word elements ‘Pink Lady’ - Opposition dismissed - Decision of an EU trade mark court - Alteration - Res judicata))
   (2016/C 343/09)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellants: Apple and Pear Australia Ltd, Star Fruits Diffusion (represented by: T. de Haan, avocat, and P. Péters, advocaat)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, Agent), Carolus C. BVBA

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Apple and Pear Australia Ltd and Star Fruits Diffusion to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 254, 3.8.2015.


title: Case C-16/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) made on 11 January 2010 — The Number Ltd, Conduit Enterprises Ltd v Office of Communications and British Telecommunications PLC

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/40

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) made on 11 January 2010 — The Number Ltd, Conduit Enterprises Ltd v Office of Communications and British Telecommunications PLC
   (Case C-16/10)
   2010/C 63/63
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: The Number Ltd, Conduit Enterprises Ltd

      Defendant: Office of Communications and British Telecommunications PLC

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the power afforded to Member States under Article 8(1) of Directive 2002/22/EC (1) (‘the Universal Service Directive’), read together with Article 8 of Directive 2002/21/EC (2) (‘the Framework Directive’), Articles 3(2) and 6(2) of Directive 2002/20/EC (3) (‘the Authorisation Directive’), and Article 3(2) of the Universal Service Directive and other material provisions of EC law, to designate one or more undertakings to guarantee the provision of universal service, or different elements of universal service, as identified in Articles 4, 5,6, 7 and 9(2) of the Universal Service Directive, to be interpreted as:

                           (a)

                           Permitting the Member State, where it decides to designate an undertaking pursuant to this provision, only to impose specific obligations on that undertaking which require the undertaking itself to provide to end users the universal service or element thereof in respect of which it is designated? Or

                           (b)

                           Permitting the Member State, when it decides to designate an undertaking under this provision, to place the designated undertaking under such specific obligations as the Member State considers to be most efficient, appropriate and proportionate for the purpose of guaranteeing the provision of the universal service or element thereof to end users, whether or not those obligations require the designated undertaking itself to provide the universal service or element thereof to end users?

               2.

               Do the above provisions, when read also in light of Article 3(2) of the Universal Service Directive, permit Member States, in circumstances where an undertaking is designated under Article 8(1) of the Universal Service Directive in relation to Article 5(l)(b) of that Directive (comprehensive telephone directory enquiry service) without being required to supply such a service directly to end users, to impose specific obligations on that designated undertaking:

                           (a)

                           to maintain and update a comprehensive database of: subscriber information;

                           (b)

                           to make available in machine readable form the contents of a comprehensive database of subscriber information, as updated on a regular basis, to any person seeking to provide publicly available directory enquiry services or directories (whether or not that person intends to provide a comprehensive directory enquiry service to end-users); and

                           (c)

                           to supply the database on terms which are fair, objective, cost oriented and non-discriminatory to such a person?

      (1)  Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive)
   OJ L 108, p. 51

      (2)  Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive)
   OJ L 108, p. 33

      (3)  Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive)
   OJ L 108, p. 21


title: Case T-636/16: Action brought on 5 September 2016 — Starbucks and Starbucks Manufacturing Emea v Commission

text:
               12.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/25

         Action brought on 5 September 2016 — Starbucks and Starbucks Manufacturing Emea v Commission
   (Case T-636/16)
   (2016/C 462/32)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Starbucks Corp. (Seattle, Washington, United States) and Starbucks Manufacturing Emea BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: S. Verschuur, M. Petite and M-A. Stroungi, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul Articles 1-4 of the Commission’s decision of 21 October 2015 on State Aid SA.38374 (2014/C ex 2014/NN) implemented by the Netherlands to Starbucks (‘the contested decision’);

               —

               in the alternative, annul Article 2(1) of the contested decision; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of this procedure.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 107(1) TFEU by committing a material error of law and a manifest error of assessment when interpreting and applying the reference framework for purposes of assessing whether the APA confers a selective advantage.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 107(1) TFEU by incorrectly establishing that the APA conferred an advantage, thereby committing various manifest errors of fact and assessment, failing to conduct a diligent and impartial examination and giving an inadequate statement of reasons.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 16 of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 (1) by wrongly quantifying the alleged aid, thereby committing a material error of law and a manifest error of assessment.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015, L 248, p. 9).


title: Case T-252/10 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 29 July 2010 — Cross Czech v Commission (Application for interim measures — Sixth Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities — Letter confirming the findings of a financial audit — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Disregard of formal requirements — Inadmissibility)

text:
               25.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/14

         Order of the President of the General Court of 29 July 2010 — Cross Czech v Commission
   (Case T-252/10 R)
   (Application for interim measures - Sixth Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities - Letter confirming the findings of a financial audit - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Disregard of formal requirements - Inadmissibility)
   2010/C 260/19
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Cross Czech a.s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: T. Schollaert, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and W. Roels, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for suspension of operation of the Commission’s letter of 12 March 2010 confirming the findings of the audit of financial statements submitted by the applicant for the period from 1 February 2005 to 30 April 2008 in respect of the eMapps.com, CEEC IST NET and Transfer-East projects

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case T-311/16: Action brought on 21 June 2016 — Siemens Industry Software v Commission

text:
               22.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/41

         Action brought on 21 June 2016 — Siemens Industry Software v Commission
   (Case T-311/16)
   (2016/C 305/56)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Siemens Industry Software (Leuven, Belgium) (represented by: H. Gilliams and J. Bocken, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission decision of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Articles 2-4 of the Decision;

               —

               in any event, annul Articles 2-4 of that Decision in so far as these Articles (a) require recovery from entities other than the entities that have been issued an ‘excess profit ruling’ as defined in the Decision and (b) require the recovery of an amount equal to the beneficiary’s tax savings, without allowing Belgium to take into account an actual upwards adjustment by another tax administration;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment, excess of power and failure to provide adequate reasons in so far as the Commission decision of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium alleges the existence of an aid scheme.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107 TFUE and of the duty to state reasons and manifest error of assessment in so far as the contested decision qualifies the purported scheme as a selective measure.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107 TFUE and manifest error of assessment in so far as the contested decision asserts that the purported scheme gives rise to an advantage.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107 TFUE, infringement of legitimate expectations, manifest error of assessment, excess of power and failure to provide adequate reasons in so far as the contested decision order Belgium to recover aid.


               24.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/14

         Removal from the register of Case C-156/05 (1)

   (2005/C 330/36)

      Language of the case: Greek

   By order of 26 September 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-156/05: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic.

      (1)  OJ C 132, 28.5.2005.