title: Case T-24/03: Action brought on 30 January 2003 by Antonio Aresu against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 70/30               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                       22.3.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          The applicant did not receive a number of the measures listed.
                                                                         The demand for repayment of aid which was not granted thus
                                                                         patently infringes substantive law.
The applicant is a porcelain-manufacturing undertaking based
in Kahla, Thüringen (Thuringia). As the investor which made
the highest offer, it acquired machinery, plant and property
from the receiver responsible for administering the assets
of Kahla Porzellan GmbH. In its contested decision, the
Commission classified a number of measures in favour of
Kahla Porzellan GmbH and the applicant as constituting aid
and declared them to be incompatible with the Common                     Action brought on 30 January 2003 by Antonio Aresu
Market.                                                                    against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-24/03)
By its action, the applicant takes issue in particular with the
order for repayment of the investment subsidy of 2,5 million
                                                                                (2003/C 70/48)
DEM, the order for repayment of allegedly ‘de minimis’ aid
payments and that for repayment of grants made for the
implementation of job-creation measures under Para-                                          (Language of the case: Italian)
graph 249h of the Arbeitsförderungsgesetz (Law on the
Promotion of Employment) (‘AFG’). In its action it alleges
infringement of the EC Treaty, breach of fundamental prin-
ciples of Community law and manifest errors of fact and of               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
appraisal.                                                               ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                         Communities on 30 January 2003 by Antonio Aresu rep-
                                                                         resented by Sergio Diana, acting as Agent, with an address for
The applicant contends that the order for repayment of                   service in Luxembourg.
the investment subsidy and of the grants paid out under
Paragraph 249h AFG is contrary to the EC Treaty. The
investment subsidy was granted from an approved programme                The applicant claims that the Court should:
and, with regard to measures under Paragraph 249h AFG, the
Commission expressly determined in 1994 that these did not               —     annul the following two decisions:
constitute aid. In both cases, therefore, the rules applicable to
existing aid applied. In its decision, however, the Commission                 (a)   the express decision of the appointing authority
went beyond an examination of whether the particular con-                            of 29 August 2002 recorded in the note from
ditions of the programmes had been complied with and                                 Mr T. Lennon D(2002)687 of 2 September 2002,
retroactively applied more stringent conditions to those pro-                        received on 4 September 2002, announcing the
grammes than were contained in the programmes or in the                              rejection of the applicant’s application for vacant
conditions of approval which the Commission had imposed.                             post COM/059/02 and the awarding of that post to
The Commission is thereby in breach of Articles 87 EC and 88                         Mr M. Scannell;
EC and in infringement of the principle of legal certainty.
                                                                               (b) the implied decision of the appointing authority of
                                                                                17 January 2003 rejecting the complaint made by
The applicant argues further that the Commission has infringed                       the applicant on 17 September 2002 against that
the fundamental principle of the protection of legitimate                            decision.
expectations by failing to take account of the fact that the
publication by the Commission itself in the Official Journal of          —     order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.
the EC of its formal approval of the programme for guarantee-
ing investment and the rules in Paragraph 249h AFG gives no
indication of the more stringent restrictions which it has
applied within the context of the contested decision. The                Pleas in law and main arguments
applicant was thus entitled to rely on the expectation that both
programmes would be applied in the form as published and
approved by the Commission. The demand for repayment,                    The applicant in this case contests the rejection of his
which runs counter to this expectation, is patently unlawful.            application for a post as head of unit in the Health and
                                                                         Consumer Protection Directorate-General.
The applicant submits further that the Commission’s findings
contain fundamental errors of fact and a number of manifest              In support of his claims the applicant submits that the
errors of appraisal. First, there is an error of appraisal in the        contested decisions stated no grounds, in breach of the second
                                                                         paragraph of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations.
classification of the applicant as an undertaking in difficulty.
The demand for repayment of the ‘de minimis’ aid payments
also contains manifest and significant errors as to the facts.


title: Case T-177/06: Action brought on 3 July 2006 — Ayuntamiento de Madrid and Madrid Calle 30 v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               2.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/33

         Action brought on 3 July 2006 — Ayuntamiento de Madrid and Madrid Calle 30 v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-177/06)
   (2006/C 212/60)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicants: Ayuntamiento de Madrid and Madrid Calle 30 (Madrid) (represented by: J. L. Buendía Sierra and R. González-Gallarza Granizo)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               order the cancellation of the classification by the European Commission (Eurostat) of Madrid Calle 30 in the ‘public administration’ sector, in accordance with the ‘European System of Accounts’ (ESA 95) set out in Annex A of Regulation (EC) No 2223/96 of the Council of 25 June 1996, which is based on the accounts published by the Commission (Eurostat) on 24 April 2006 on the data for the year 2005 on government deficit and debt for the application of the Protocol on the excessive deficit procedure;

               —

               order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   This application seeks annulment of the classification by the European Commission (Eurostat) of Madrid Calle 30 S.A. in the ‘public administration’ sector, in accordance with the ‘EUROPEAN SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTS — ESA 95’ (ESA 95) set out in Annex A of Regulation (EC) No 2223/96 of 25 June 1996 on the European system of national and regional accounts in the Community (1). According to the applicants, that classification is based on the accounts published by the Commission (Eurostat) on 24 April 2006 on the data for the year 2005 on government deficit and debt for the application of the Protocol on the excessive deficit procedure annexed to the EC Treaty.
   The applicants submit that Madrid Calle 30 is a corporation whose shares are held by the Ayuntamiento de Madrid and a private consortium, formed of three construction and service companies selected after a call for tenders subject to strict criteria in respect of market prices.
   In support of their forms of order the applicants allege:

               —

               infringement of several of the ESA 95 rules on the classification of institutional units in the ‘public administration’ or ‘non-financial corporation’ sectors.

               —

               infringement of the general principles that administrative acts must state the principles on which they are based and that the person concerned must be given a hearing.

      (1)  OJ 1996 L 310, p. 1.


title: Case T-531/13: Order of the General Court of 28 January 2015 — Kicks Kosmetikkedjan v OHIM — Kik Textilien (KICKS) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               30.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/27

      Order of the General Court of 28 January 2015 — Kicks Kosmetikkedjan v OHIM — Kik Textilien (KICKS)

      (Case T-531/13) (1)

      ((Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate))
      (2015/C 107/36)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Kicks Kosmetikkedjan AB (Stockholm, Sweden) (represented by: K. Strömholm, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Kik Textilien und Non-Food GmbH (Bönen, Germany)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 July 2013 (Case R 992/2012-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Kik Textilien und Non-Food GmbH et Kicks Kosmetikkedjan AB.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

                  2.

                  The applicant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of the costs incurred by the defendant.

         (1)  OJ C 359, 7.12.2013.


title: Case C-8/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Østre Landsret by decision of 20 December 2000 in the case of Assurandør-Societet, acting on behalf of Taksatorring, v Skatteministeriet

text:
C 61/10               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    24.2.2001
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Østre Landsret               Question 5
by decision of 20 December 2000 in the case of Assur-
andør-Societet, acting on behalf of Taksatorring, v Skatte-            Does the fact that assessment services are, so far as the largest
                           ministeriet                                 insurance companies are concerned, provided by assessors
                                                                       employed by those insurance companies themselves and are
                                                                       thus exempt from VAT have any bearing on the answers to
                          (Case C-8/01)                                Questions 1 and 2?
                         (2001/C 61/16)                                (1) OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by decision of 20 December 2000 by
the Østre Landsret (Eastern Regional Court), which was
received at the Court Registry on 10 January 2001, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Assurandør-Societet, acting
on behalf of Taksatorring, v Skatteministeriet on the following
questions:
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hof van Beroep
                                                                       te Gent by judgment of that court of 3 January 2001 in
Question 1                                                             the cases of S. Monnier against Govan Sports N.V., E. Van
                                                                       Ankeren against Govan Sports N.V., Govan Sports N.V.
                                                                       against P. Jacobs, and Govan Sports N. V. against
Must the provisions of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of                                      D. D’Hondt
17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member
States relating to turnover taxes Common system of value
added tax: uniform basis of assessment (1), and in particular the                      (Cases C-9, 10, 11 and 12/01)
provision in Article 13B(a) thereof, be interpreted as meaning
that assessment services which an undertaking provides for its                                  (2001/C 61/17)
members are to be regarded as being covered by the term
‘insurance transaction’, within the meaning of that provision,
or by the term ‘related services performed by insurance brokers        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
and insurance agents’?                                                 European Communities by judgments of 3 January 2001 of
                                                                       the Hof van Beroep te Gent (Court of Appeal, Ghent), received
                                                                       at the Court Registry on 10 January 2001, for a preliminary
Question 2                                                             ruling in the cases of S. Monnier against Govan Sports N. V.
                                                                       (C-9/01), E. Van Ankeren against Govan Sports N. V.
                                                                       (C-10/01), Govan Sports N. V. against P. Jacobs (C-11/01) and
Must Article 13A(1)(f) of the Sixth VAT Directive be interpreted       Govan Sports N. V. against D. D’Hondt (C-12/01) on the
as meaning that exemption from VAT must be granted for                 following question:
services of the type which an undertaking — which otherwise
meets the conditions set out in that provision for VAT
exemption — provides for its members, in the case where it             Do the provisions of the Treaty concerning the free provision
cannot be demonstrated that the exemption will produce                 of services preclude a statutory prohibition on providing
actual or imminent distortion of competition but where there           employment procurement services for paid sportspersons
is merely a possibility that this might happen?                        (whether or not they are professionals) and/or does the holding
                                                                       of a monopoly on the provision of such services for such
                                                                       sportspersons by the Vlaamse Dienst voor Arbeidsbemiddeling
Question 3                                                             (Flemish Employment Procurement Service) constitute an
                                                                       abuse of a dominant position? Do the provisions of the Royal
                                                                       Decree of 28 November 1975 thus infringe the provisions of
Does the issue of how remote the possibility of a distortion of        Community law, and in particular Articles 86 and 90(1) of the
competition may be assumed to be, or whether the possibility           EC Treaty, in so far as that Royal Decree confers the exclusive
seems unrealistic, have any bearing on the answer to Ques-             right to procure employment for paid (professional or non-
tion 2?                                                                professional) sportspersons on a public employment agency,
                                                                       in so far as that statutory provision also renders the actual
Question 4                                                             pursuit of such activities by private employment agencies
                                                                       impossible by maintaining in force a statutory provision under
                                                                       which such activities are prohibited and non-observance of
Would it be incompatible with Article 13A(1)(f) of the Sixth           that provision renders the agreements concerned void, and in
VAT Directive to proceed on the basis that under national law          so far as the procurement activities concerned may extend to
it is possible to make a tax exemption that is notified pursuant       the nationals or to the territory of other Member States?
to that provision limited in time in cases where there is doubt
as to whether the exemption might at a later stage distort
competition?


title: Case C-318/10: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — Belgium) — Société d’investissement pour l’agriculture tropicale SA (SIAT) v État belge (Freedom to provide services — Tax legislation — Deduction as business expenses of expenses incurred as payment for the provision of services — Expenses incurred in relation to a service provider established in another Member State in which that provider is not subject to tax on income or is subject there to a tax regime which is appreciably more advantageous — Deductibility conditional upon the provision of proof of the genuine and proper nature of the services and the normal nature of the related payments — Obstacle — Justification — Combating tax evasion and avoidance — Effectiveness of fiscal supervision — Balanced allocation between Member States of the power to impose taxes — Proportionality)

text:
               22.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/2

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — Belgium) — Société d’investissement pour l’agriculture tropicale SA (SIAT) v État belge
   (Case C-318/10) (1)

   (Freedom to provide services - Tax legislation - Deduction as business expenses of expenses incurred as payment for the provision of services - Expenses incurred in relation to a service provider established in another Member State in which that provider is not subject to tax on income or is subject there to a tax regime which is appreciably more advantageous - Deductibility conditional upon the provision of proof of the genuine and proper nature of the services and the normal nature of the related payments - Obstacle - Justification - Combating tax evasion and avoidance - Effectiveness of fiscal supervision - Balanced allocation between Member States of the power to impose taxes - Proportionality)
   2012/C 287/03
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Société d’investissement pour l’agriculture tropicale SA (SIAT)

      Defendant: État belge

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation — Interpretation of Article 49 EC — Tax legislation allowing the deduction of business expenses incurred by a resident taxpayer, but not allowing the deduction of such expenses if the taxpayer resides or is established in another Member State in which that taxpayer is not subject to any tax on income or is subject there to a tax regime which is appreciably more advantageous — Restriction on the freedom to provide services

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 49 EC must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as the legislation at issue in the main proceedings, under which payments made by a resident taxpayer to a non-resident company for supplies or services are not to be regarded as deductible business expenses where the non-resident company is not subject, in the Member State of establishment, to tax on income or is subject, as regards the relevant income, to a tax regime which is appreciably more advantageous than the applicable regime in the former Member State, unless the taxpayer proves that such payments relate to genuine and proper transactions and do not exceed the normal limits, whereas, under the general rule, such payments are to be regarded as deductible business expenses if they are necessary for acquiring or retaining taxable income and if the taxpayer demonstrates the authenticity and amount of those expenses.

      (1)  OJ C 246, 11.9.2010.


title: Case T-514/13: Action brought on 23 September 2013 — AgriCapital v OHIM — agri.capital (AGRI.CAPITAL)

text:
               30.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/18

         Action brought on 23 September 2013 — AgriCapital v OHIM — agri.capital (AGRI.CAPITAL)
   (Case T-514/13)
   2013/C 352/34
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: AgriCapital Corp. (New York, United States) (represented by: P. Meyer and M. Gramsch, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: agri.capital GmbH (Münster, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 July 2013 given in Case R 2236/2012-2;

               —

               Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear their own costs of proceedings, as well as those incurred by the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘AGRI.CAPITAL’ for goods and services in Classes 4, 7, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 42 and 45 — Community trade mark application No 8 341 323

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 6 192 322 for the word mark ‘AgriCapital’ for services in Class 36 and Community trade mark registration No 4 589 339 for the word mark ‘AGRICAPITAL’ for services in Class 36

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8 (1)(b) CTMR.


title: Case T-665/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Baltijas pētnieciskās žurnālistikas centrs Re:Baltica v Parliament

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/78

         Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Baltijas pētnieciskās žurnālistikas centrs Re:Baltica v Parliament
   (Case T-665/15)
   (2016/C 048/86)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Baltijas pētnieciskās žurnālistikas centrs Re:Baltica (Riga, Latvia) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul decision A(2015)8305 C of the European Parliament of 15 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

               —

               order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).


title: Case T-138/14: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Chart v EEAS (Non-contractual liability — Local member of staff assigned to the EU delegation in Egypt — Expiry of contract — Failure by the EU delegation to issue a termination of service certificate in respect of the official to the social security services of the Egyptian administration and to subsequently regularise the latter’s situation in that regard — Limitation — Continuing damage — Partial inadmissibility — Principle of good administration — Reasonable period of time — Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Sufficiently serious infringement of a legal rule conferring rights on individuals — Quantifiable damage — Causal link)

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/46

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Chart v EEAS
   (Case T-138/14) (1)

   ((Non-contractual liability - Local member of staff assigned to the EU delegation in Egypt - Expiry of contract - Failure by the EU delegation to issue a termination of service certificate in respect of the official to the social security services of the Egyptian administration and to subsequently regularise the latter’s situation in that regard - Limitation - Continuing damage - Partial inadmissibility - Principle of good administration - Reasonable period of time - Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Sufficiently serious infringement of a legal rule conferring rights on individuals - Quantifiable damage - Causal link))
   (2016/C 048/52)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Randa Chart (Woluwe-Saint-Lambert, Belgium) (represented by: T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

      Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS) (represented by: S. Marquardt and M. Silva, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   ACTION for damages in respect of loss allegedly suffered by the applicants by reason of the failure by the EU delegation in Cairo (Egypt), following her resignation, to issue a termination of service certificate in respect of the applicant to the social security services of the Egyptian administration and to subsequently regularise her situation in that regard.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Orders the European External Action Service (EEAS) to pay damages amounting to EUR 25 000 to Mrs Randa Chart;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders Mrs Chart to bear two-tenths of her own costs and two-tenths of the costs incurred by the EEAS;

               4.

               Orders the EEAS to bear eight-tenths of its own costs and eight-tenths of the costs incurred by Mrs Chart.

      (1)  OJ C 159, 26.5.2014.


title: Case F-117/13: Action brought on 30 November 2013 — ZZ v Frontex

text:
               1.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/23

         Action brought on 30 November 2013 — ZZ v Frontex
   (Case F-117/13)
   2014/C 31/41
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: Agence européenne pour la gestion de la coopération opérationnelle aux frontières extérieures des États membres de l'Union européenne (FRONTEX)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the decision not to renew the contract of the applicant after the annulment, by the Civil Service Tribunal, of the first decision of non-renewal of his contract.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of Frontex dated 19 February 2013 not to renew the contract of the applicant;

               —

               exercise, if so required, its full jurisdiction to ensure the effectiveness of its decision;

               —

               order the Defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case C-8/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 29 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 4 de Marorell — Spain) — BBVA SA, formerly Unnim Banc SA v Pedro Peñalva López, Clara López Durán, Diego Fernández Gabarro (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Mortgage loan agreement — Unfair terms — Enforcement proceedings — Opposition — Time-limits)

text:
               21.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 429/2

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 29 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 4 de Marorell — Spain) — BBVA SA, formerly Unnim Banc SA v Pedro Peñalva López, Clara López Durán, Diego Fernández Gabarro
   (Case C-8/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Mortgage loan agreement - Unfair terms - Enforcement proceedings - Opposition - Time-limits))
   (2015/C 429/02)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 4 de Marorell

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: BBVA SA, formerly Unnim Banc SA

      Defendant: Pedro Peñalva López, Clara López Durán, Diego Fernández Gabarro

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 6 and 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude a national transitional provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, as regards mortgage enforcement proceedings which were instituted before the date of entry into force of the law of which that provision forms part and which were not concluded at that date, imposes a time-limit on consumers calculated from the day following the publication of that law, to object to enforcement on the basis of the alleged unfairness of contractual terms.

      (1)  OJ C 102, 7.4.2014.


title: Case C-274/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Económico Administrativo Central de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 5 June 2014  — Banco de Santander, S.A.

text:
               8.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Económico Administrativo Central de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 5 June 2014 — Banco de Santander, S.A.
   (Case C-274/14)
   2014/C 303/19
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Económico Administrativo Central de Madrid

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Banco de Santander, S.A.

      Questions referred

               1)

               Must Article 1(2) of the European Commission Decision (1) of 28 October 2009 on the tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions C 45/07 be interpreted to the effect that the legitimate expectations recognised in that paragraph and in the terms in which they are confined therein to deduction of the tax amortisation of financial goodwill under Article 12.5 TRLIS are to be considered applicable in relation to indirect foreign shareholding acquisitions made through the direct acquisition of a non-resident holding company?

               2)

               If the answer to the first question is affirmative, is Decision C(2013) 4399 final of 17 July 2013 in State aid proceedings No SA. 35550 (2013/C) (ex 13/NN, ex 12/CP) — Tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions, which decides to initiate the procedure provided for under Article 108(2) TFEU for infringement of Article 108 TFEU and of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (2) of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (now Article 108 TFEU), invalid?

      (1)  OJ 2011 L 7, p. 48.

      (2)  OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1.


title: Case C-71/10: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom) — Office of Communications v Information Commissioner (Public access to environmental information — Directive 2003/4/EC — Article 4 — Exceptions to the right of access — Request for access involving more than one of the interests protected under Article 4(2) of that directive)

text:
               8.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 298/6

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom) — Office of Communications v Information Commissioner
   (Case C-71/10) (1)

   (Public access to environmental information - Directive 2003/4/EC - Article 4 - Exceptions to the right of access - Request for access involving more than one of the interests protected under Article 4(2) of that directive)
   2011/C 298/09
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

      Parties

      Respondent: Office of Communications

      Appellant: Information Commissioner

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Supreme Court of the United Kingdom — Interpretation of Article 4(2)(b) and (e) of Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC (OJ 2003 L 41, p. 26) — Exceptions to the right of access — Request for access involving more than one of the interests protected under Article 4(2) of the directive, the adverse effect on each interest being insufficient in itself to justify refusal of access

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 4(2) of Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that, where a public authority holds environmental information or such information is held on its behalf, it may, when weighing the public interests served by disclosure against the interests served by refusal to disclose, in order to assess a request for that information to be made available to a natural or legal person, take into account cumulatively a number of the grounds for refusal set out in that provision.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.


title: Case C-88/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo, 1a Secção, 3a Subsecção by judgment of that court of 24 November 1999 in the case of Directora-Geral do Departamento para os Assuntos do Fundo Social Europeu against Mobilcromo — Indústria de Mobiliário e Revestimentos Metálicos, Lda

text:
27.5.2000                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 149/23
2. Must Regulation No 1785/81 be interpreted as meaning                       law, annulled on grounds of lack of competence, under
     that the classification of an area as a deficit area is to be            Article 133(2)(b) of the Código do Procedimento Adminis-
     based on a calculation method which treats as being                      trativo (Code on Administrative Procedure), inasmuch as
     consumed in that area sugar which is incorporated there                  the final decision on such matters falls within the purview
     in a processed product even if the latter is eaten in another            of the Commission of the European Communities, and in
     country, or is the classification of an area as a deficit area           other cases, to the opposite effect, it has held that the
     to be based on a calculation method which does not treat                 DAFSE has exclusive competence, a view supported by the
     as being consumed in that area sugar which is incorporated               fact that in Portuguese law it is expressly provided
     there in a processed product even if the latter is eaten in              that authenticated orders or decisions of the DAFSE are
     another country?                                                         enforceable in respect of debts arising from certification.
3. Is Regulation (EC) No 1361/98 26 June 1998, published
     in OJ 1998 L 185, p. 3, valid, in view of the fact that it
     fails to fix a derived intervention price for all areas of Italy    (1) OJ 1983 L 289, p. 1.
     in accordance with Article 3(1). Article 5(3), and Article          (2) OJ 1983 L 289, p. 38.
     6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1785/81 and contains no
     statement of reasons for that omission?
(1) OJ L 185 of 30.6.98, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 185 of 30.6.98, p. 3.
(3) OJ L 177 of 1.7.81, p. 4.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo
Tribunal Administrativo, 1a Secção, 3a Subsecção by
judgment of that court of 24 November 1999 in the case                   Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs-
of Directora-Geral do Departamento para os Assuntos do                   gericht Berlin, by order of that court of 3 December 1999
Fundo Social Europeu against Mobilcromo — Indústria                     in the case of Bülent Recep Bicakci, Bedriye Bicakci,
         de Mobiliário e Revestimentos Metálicos, Lda                  Hidajet Kemal Bicakci and Burak Bicakci against Land
                                                                                Berlin
                           (Case C-88/00)
                          (2000/C 149/40)                                                          (Case C-89/00)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Supremo Tribunal
Administrativo, 1a Secção, 3a Subsecção (Second Sub-Chamber                                     (2000/C 149/41)
of the First Chamber of the Supreme Administrative Court) of
24 November 1999, which was received at the Court Registry
on 7 March 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Directora-Geral do Departamento para os Assuntos do Fundo                European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht
Social Europeu against Mobilcromo — Indústria de Mobiliário            Berlin (Administrative Court, Berlin), of 3 December 1999,
e Revestimentos Metálicos, Lda. The Supremo Tribunal Admin-             received at the Court Registry on 8 March 2000, for a
istrativo referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling on the          preliminary ruling in the case of Bülent Recep Bicakci, Bedriye
interpretation of Community law, namely:                                 Bicakci, Hidajet Kemal Bicakci and Burak Bicakci against Land
                                                                         Berlin, on the following question:
— Articles 1, 5(4), 6(1) and (2), and 7(1), (2) and (5) of
     Council Regulation (EEC) No 2950/83 (1) of 17 October
     1983 on the implementation of Decision 83/516/EEC (2)
     on the tasks of the European Social Fund (ESF);                     Is the termination of the residence of a Turkish national who
                                                                         fulfils the requirements of the first sentence of Article 7 of
     and                                                                 Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council, by
— Article 5(1) and (5) of Council Decision 83/516/EEC on                 the expulsion of that person solely on general preventive
                                                                         grounds relating to the deterrence of other aliens, compatible
     the tasks of the European Social Fund in order to ascertain
                                                                         with Article 14(1) of Decision No 1/80?
     the legal nature of the certification by the national
     authorities as to the accuracy of the facts and accounts in
     payment claims for the return of certain amounts relating
     to vocational training projects funded by the European
     Social Fund, a certificate on which the Supremo Tribunal
     Administrativo has, in some cases, according to its case-


title: Case C-152/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret (Denmark) lodged on 31 March 2010 — Unomedical A/S v Skatteministeriet

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret (Denmark) lodged on 31 March 2010 — Unomedical A/S v Skatteministeriet
   (Case C-152/10)
   2010/C 148/31
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Højesteret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Unomedical A/S

      Defendant: Skatteministeriet

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is a dialysis bag, manufactured from plastic, which is specially designed for and can only be used with a dialyser to be classified under

                           —

                           Chapter 90, CN heading 9010 90 30, as a ‘part’ and/or ‘accessory’ for a dialyser, see chapter note 2(b) to Chapter 90 of the Common Customs Tariff
                           or

                           —

                           Chapter 39, CN heading 3926 90 99, as plastics or articles thereof?

               2.

               Is a urine drainage bag, manufactured from plastic, which is specially designed for and therefore can only be, and in fact is, used exclusively in connection with a catheter, to be classified under

                           —

                           Chapter 90, CN heading 9018399030, as a ‘part’ and/or ‘accessory’ for a catheter, see chapter note 2(b) to Chapter 90 of the Customs Tariff
                           or

                           —

                           Chapter 39, CN heading 3926 90 99, as plastics or articles thereof?


title: Case C-495/11 P: Appeal brought on 27 September 2011 by Total SA and Elf Aquitaine SA against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) on 14 July 2011 in Case T-190/06 Total and Elf Aquitaine v Commission

text:
               3.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/10

         Appeal brought on 27 September 2011 by Total SA and Elf Aquitaine SA against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) on 14 July 2011 in Case T-190/06 Total and Elf Aquitaine v Commission
   (Case C-495/11 P)
   2011/C 355/17
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellants: Total SA and Elf Aquitaine SA (represented by: E. Morgan de Rivery and A. Noël-Baron, avocats)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   Primarily:

               —

               on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, set aside the judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2011 in Case T-190/06 Total and Elf Aquitaine v Commission;

               —

               grant the forms of order sought at first instance before the General Court;

               —

               consequently, annul Articles 1(o) and (p), 2(i), 3 and 4 of Commission Decision C(2006) 1766 final of 3 May 2006;

         in the alternative:

               —

               cancel, on the basis of Article 261 TFEU, the fines imposed on Elf Aquitaine and Total jointly and severally under Article 2(i) of that decision;

         in the further alternative:

               —

               amend, on the basis of Article 261 TFEU, the fines imposed on Elf Aquitaine and Total jointly and severally under Article 2(i) of that decision;

               —

               in any event, order the European Commission to pay all the costs, including those incurred by Elf Aquitaine and Total before the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of their appeal, the appellants raise five main grounds of appeal, one in the alternative and one in the further alternative.
   By the first ground of appeal, Total SA and Elf Aquitaine SA claim that the General Court infringed Article 5 TEU in so far as it validated the principle that a parent company is automatically liable for the infringements committed by its subsidiary, which the Commission applied in the present case and justified by the concept of undertaking within the meaning of Article 101 TFEU. Such an approach is incompatible with the principles of conferral of powers and subsidiarity (first part) and with the principle of proportionality (second part).
   By the second ground of appeal, the appellants submit that the General Court’s interpretation of national law and of the concept of undertaking was manifestly erroneous in that, inter alia, it conferred the wrong legal status on the principle of autonomy of legal persons.
   By the third ground of appeal, the appellants claim, in essence, that the General Court deliberately refused to draw the appropriate conclusions from the criminal nature of competition law sanctions and from the new obligations resulting from the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In the appellants’ view, the General Court applied the concept of undertaking under European Union law unlawfully and erroneously, without regard to the presumption of autonomy on which national company law is based and to the criminal nature of competition law sanctions. Moreover, the appellants submit that the General Court should have raised, of its own motion, the illegality of the current administrative procedure before the Commission.
   By the fourth ground of appeal, the appellants allege infringement of the rights of the defence as a result of an erroneous interpretation of the principles of fairness and equality of arms. The General Court approved the Commission’s use of probatio diabolica and erred in finding that a subsidiary’s autonomy must be assessed in general terms by reference to its capital links with its parent company, whereas it ought to be assessed by reference to conduct on a given market.
   By the fifth ground of appeal, the appellants submit that the General Court made errors of law in relation to the Commission’s obligation to state the reasons for its decision (first part). Furthermore, the parties claim that the General Court substituted its own reasoning for that of the Commission (second part).
   By the sixth ground of appeal, the appellants seek, in the alternative, cancellation of the fines imposed on them.
   Lastly, by the seventh ground of appeal, put forward in the further alternative, the appellants seek a reduction in the fines imposed on them.


title: Case C-177/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sala Tercera de lo Contencioso-Administrativo del Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 10 April 2014  — María José Regojo Dans v Consejo de Estado

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/16

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sala Tercera de lo Contencioso-Administrativo del Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 10 April 2014 — María José Regojo Dans v Consejo de Estado
   (Case C-177/14)
   2014/C 253/20
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: María José Regojo Dans

      Defendant: Consejo de Estado

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the definition of ‘fixed-term worker’ in clause 3(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC (1) of 28 June 1999, include ‘non-permanent staff’ (‘personal eventual’) who are currently governed by Article 12 of Law 7/2007 of 12 April 2007 on the basic regulations relating to public servants and ‘non-permanent staff’ who were previously governed by Article 20(2) of Law 30/1984 of 2 August 1984 on measures for the reform of the civil service?

               2.

               Is the principle of non-discrimination in clause 4(4) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP applicable to such ‘non-permanent staff’, so that they may be granted the right to receive and be paid the remuneration in respect of length of service which is paid to career civil servants, staff engaged under employment contracts for an indefinite duration, interim (non-established) civil servants and staff engaged under temporary employment contracts?

               3.

               Do the rules, laid down in the two aforementioned Spanish laws, whereby the appointment of such ‘non-permanent staff’ and the termination of their appointment are not — on account of the positions of trust involved — subject to any restrictions, come within the objective grounds which under clause 4 may justify different treatment?

      (1)  OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43.


title: Case F-10/07: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 18 September 2007 — Botos v Commission (Staff cases — Officials — Social Security — Sickness insurance — Repayment of medical expenses — Serious illness — Management committee — Medical expertise)

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/69

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 18 September 2007 — Botos v Commission
   (Case F-10/07) (1)

   (Staff cases - Officials - Social Security - Sickness insurance - Repayment of medical expenses - Serious illness - Management committee - Medical expertise)
   (2007/C 269/124)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Patricia Botos (Meise, Belgium) (represented by: L. Vogel, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and K. Herrmann, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the appointing authority's decision of 30 October 2006 rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant against six administrative decisions concerning inter alia the recognition of her illness as a serious illness for the purposes of fixing the level of reimbursement of medical expenses under Article 72(1) of the Staff Regulations.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decisions of the Commission of the European Communities of 23 January 2006 and 30 October 2006, inasmuch as they refuse Mrs Botos repayment of the costs of the tests carried out by RED Laboratories and Ategis at the normal rate of the joint sickness insurance scheme;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders Mrs Botos to bear two thirds of her own costs;

               4.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs and to pay one third of Mrs Botos's costs.

      (1)  OJ C 69, 24.3.2007, p. 31.


title: Case T-532/13: Order of the General Court of 28 January 2015 — Kicks Kosmetikkedjan v OHIM — Kik Textilien (KICKS) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               30.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/28

      Order of the General Court of 28 January 2015 — Kicks Kosmetikkedjan v OHIM — Kik Textilien (KICKS)

      (Case T-532/13) (1)

      ((Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate))
      (2015/C 107/37)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Kicks Kosmetikkedjan AB (Stockholm, Sweden) (represented by: K. Strömholm, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Kik Textilien und Non-Food GmbH (Bönen, Germany)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 July 2013 (Case R 991/2012-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Kik Textilien und Non-Food GmbH et Kicks Kosmetikkedjan AB.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

                  2.

                  The applicant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of the costs incurred by the defendant.

         (1)  OJ C 359, 7.12.2013.


title: Case T-123/10: Judgment of the General Court of 30 November 2011 — Hartmann v OHIM (Complete) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark ‘Complete’ — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Descriptive character — Statement of reasons — Goods forming a homogenous group — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/49

      Judgment of the General Court of 30 November 2011 — Hartmann v OHIM (Complete)
      (Case T-123/10) (1)

      (Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark ‘Complete’ - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Descriptive character - Statement of reasons - Goods forming a homogenous group - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
      (2012/C 25/93)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Paul Hartmann AG (Heidenheim an der Brenz, Germany) (represented by N. Aicher, lawyer)

         Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by: B. Schmidt and later by: R. Manea and R. Pethke, Agents)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 January 2010 (Case R 601/2009-4) concerning an application to register the word mark ‘Complete’ as a Community trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 20 January 2010 (Case R 601/2009-4);

                  2.

                  Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Paul Hartmann AG, including the indispensable costs incurred by the latter in the procedure before the Appeals Chamber.

         (1)  OJ C 134, 22.5.2010.


title: Action brought on 8 December 1997 by B. G. S. Rowlands and E. H. S. Rowlands against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-307/97)

text:
C 94/26              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   28.3.98
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        The grounds and main arguments are the same as those
                                                                   raised in case T-304/97 Hilsdon v. Council and
                                                                   Commission.
Ð order the Council and/or the Commission to pay
    damages in accordance with Schedule 1 to the
    application,
Ð order the Council and/or Commission to pay the
    applicant's costs.                                             Action brought on 8 December 1997 by B. G. S.
                                                                   Rowlands and E. H. S. Rowlands against the Council of
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                the European Union and the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
                                                                                (Case T-307/97)
The applicant complains of the damaging consequences
arising from the fact that, unlike the position with respect                                (98/C 94/68)
to SLOM I and II milk producers, he, as a SLOM III milk
producer, has not been compensated for the absence of                             (Language of the case: English)
quota prior to the introduction of SLOM quota.
                                                                   An action against the Council of the European Union and
The pleas in law and main arguments raised by the                  the Commission of the European Communities was
applicant are the same as those raised in Case T-304/97            brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Hilsdon v. Council and Commission.                                 Communities on 8 December 1997 by B. G. S. Rowlands
                                                                   and E. H. S. Rowlands, represented by Rory Hutchings,
                                                                   Solicitor, of Messrs Dawson & Co., of 2 New Square,
                                                                   Lincoln's Inn, London WC2A 3RZ.
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
Action brought on 8 December 1997 by Messrs M. C.
Lewis, M. A. Lewis and D. C. Lewis against the Council             Ð order the Council and/or the Commission for damages
of the European Union and the Commission of the                        in accordance with Schedule 1 attached hereto,
                   European Communities
                       (Case T-306/97)                             Ð order the Council and/or the Commission to pay the
                         (98/C 94/67)                                  applicant's costs.
               (Language of the case: English)                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                   The applicant challenges the damaging consequences of
An action against the Council of the European Union and
                                                                   the fact that, unlike the position with respect to SLOM I
the Commission of the European Communities was
                                                                   and II, he, as a SLOM II milk producer, has not been
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                   compensated for the absence of quota prior to the
Communities on 8 December 1997 by Messrs M. C.
                                                                   introduction of SLOM quota.
Lewis, M. A. Lewis and D. C. Lewis, represented by Rory
Hutchings, Solicitor, of Messrs Dawson & Co., of 2 New
Square, Lincoln's Inn, London WC2A 3RZ.                            The grounds and main arguments are the same as those
                                                                   raised in case T-304/97 Hilsdon v. Council and
                                                                   Commission.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
Ð order the Council and/or the Commission for damages
    in accordance with Schedule 1 attached hereto,
Ð order the Council and/or the Commission to pay the               Action brought on 8 December 1997 by J. Ward, B. Ward
    applicant's costs.                                             and Mrs M. Lewis against the Council of the European
                                                                    Union and the Commission of the European Comunities
                                                                                (Case T-308/97)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                (98/C 94/69)
The applicant challenges the damaging consequences of
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
the fact that, unlike the position with respect to SLOM I
and II, he, as a SLOM II milk producer, has not been
compensated for the absence of quota prior to the                  An action against the Council of the European Union and
introduction of SLOM quota.                                        the Commission of the European Communities was


title: Case C-105/11 P: Appeal brought on 2 March 2011 by Kingdom of the Netherlands against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, extended composition) delivered on 16 December 2010 in Joined Cases T-231/06 and T-237/06 Kingdom of the Netherlands (T-231/06) and Nederlandse Omroep Stichting (NOS) (T-237/06) v European Commission

text:
               13.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 238/3

         Appeal brought on 2 March 2011 by Kingdom of the Netherlands against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, extended composition) delivered on 16 December 2010 in Joined Cases T-231/06 and T-237/06 Kingdom of the Netherlands (T-231/06) and Nederlandse Omroep Stichting (NOS) (T-237/06) v European Commission

   (Case C-105/11 P)
   2011/C 238/04
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Appellant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C.M. Wissels and M. Noort, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Stichting Nederlandse Publieke Omroep, formerly Nederlandse Omroep Stichting (NOS)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2010 in Joined Cases T-231/06 and T-237/06;

               —

               give judgment itself in this case by annulling Commission Decision 2008/136/EC (1) of 22 June 2006 in so far as the Commission found that an amount of EUR 42 457 million must be deemed to be new State aid and must be recovered as part of a total sum of EUR 76 327 million (plus interest);

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs, including the costs of the proceedings in the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its plea, the appellant submits that the General Court infringed European Union law by proceeding on the basis of an erroneous interpretation of Article 107(1) TFEU and Article 108(1) and (3) TFEU, in conjunction with Article 1(b) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, (2) and by failing to give reasons or by giving insufficient reasons for its findings.
   The plea is in the following parts:

               1.

               the General Court erred in basing its finding that the transfer constitutes new aid on the fact that Article 109a of the Law on media (Mediawet) was introduced after the entry into force of the Treaty;

               2.

               the General Court erred in basing its finding that the transfer constitutes new aid on the criterion that the aid meets the ‘specific needs’ (of the public broadcaster);

               3.

               the General Court erred in basing its finding that the transfer constitutes new aid on the consideration that the public broadcaster was thereby (particularly) overcompensated. The amount of any overcompensation does not determine whether the transfer constitutes new aid. In any event, the General Court gave insufficient reasons for its finding;

               4.

               the General Court erred in deciding that the source of the transfer is not relevant to the issue whether the transfer constitutes new aid. The General Court thus disregards the distinction between new and existing aid. In any event, the General Court gave insufficient reasons for its finding;

               5.

               the General Court gave insufficient reasons for its finding that the reserves transferred cannot be assumed to come from the annual financing of the public broadcasters and thus from existing aid;

               6.

               the General Court gave insufficient reasons for its finding that the funds transferred come from ad hoc payments and therefore constitute new aid;

               7.

               even if the General Court’s grounds as contested above have to be read in conjunction with each other, they cannot lead to the conclusion that the transfer constitutes new aid.

      (1)  Commission Decision 2008/136/EC of 22 June 2006 on the ad hoc financing of Dutch public service broadcasters C 2/2004 (ex NN 170/2003) (OJ 2008 L 49, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).


7.3.98               EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 72/15
      Removal from the register of Case C-286/97 (1)                    Removal from the register of Case C-26/95 (1)
                         (98/C 72/31)                                                     (98/C 72/34)
By order of 17 November 1997 the President of the Court          By order of 26 November 1997 the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the           of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-286/97: Commission           removal from the register of Case C-26/95 (reference for a
of the European Communities v. Portuguese Republic.              preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
                                                                 Terni): Criminal proceedings against Ivana Rosi.
(1) OJ C 295, 27.9.1997.
                                                                 (1) OJ C 74, 25.3.1995.
      Removal from the register of Case C-141/97 (1)
                         (98/C 72/32)                                   Removal from the register of Case C-49/97 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 72/35)
By order of 20 November 1997 the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-141/97: Commission           By order of 1 December 1997 the President of the Court
of the European Communities v. Italian Republic.                 of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                 removal from the register of Case C-49/97: Commission of
(1) OJ C 181, 14.6.1997.                                         the European Communities v. French Republic.
                                                                 (1) OJ C 108, 5.4.1997.
       Removal from the register of Case C-88/97 (1)
                         (98/C 72/33)
                                                                       Removal from the register of Case C-227/97 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 72/36)
By order of 24 November 1997 the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-88/97: Commission of         By order of 1 December 1997 the President of the Court
the European Communities v. Portuguese Republic.                 of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                 removal from the register of Case C-227/97: Commission
(1) OJ C 108, 5.4.1997.                                          of the European Communities v. Portuguese Republic.
                                                                 (1) OJ C 228, 26.7.1997.


title: Case C-297/06: Order of the President of the Court of 23 May 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               4.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/28

         Order of the President of the Court of 23 May 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-297/06) (1)

   (2007/C 183/50)

      Language of the case: Greek

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

      (1)  OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.


title: Case C-235/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Ried im Innkreis (Austria) lodged on 2 June 2008 — Criminal proceedings against Roland Langer

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/23

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Ried im Innkreis (Austria) lodged on 2 June 2008 — Criminal proceedings against Roland Langer
   (Case C-235/08)
   (2008/C 223/35)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Landesgericht Ried im Innkreis
   Party to the main proceedings
   Roland Langer
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 43 EC (Treaty establishing the European Community, in the version of 2 October 1997, most recently amended by the Treaty of 25 April 2005 concerning the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union (OJ 2005 L 157, p. 11)) to be interpreted as precluding a provision which provides that only public limited companies established in the territory of a particular Member State may there operate games of chance in casinos, thereby necessitating the establishment or acquisition of a company limited by shares in that Member State?

               2.

               Are Articles 43 EC and 49 EC to be interpreted as precluding a national monopoly on certain types of gaming, such as games of chance in casinos, if there is no consistent and systematic policy whatsoever in the Member State concerned to limit gaming, inasmuch as national licensed organisers encourage participation in gaming — such as public sports betting and lotteries — and advertise such gaming (on television and in newspapers and magazines) in a manner which goes as far as offering a cash payment for a lottery ticket shortly before the lottery draw is made (‘TOI TOI TOI — Believe in luck!’)?

               3.

               Are Articles 43 EC and 49 EC to be interpreted as precluding a provision under which all licences granting the right to operate games of chance and casinos are issued for a period of 15 years on the basis of a scheme under which Community competitors (not belonging to that Member State) are excluded from the tendering procedure?


               15.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 11/16

         Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur dated 4 September 2014 in the case of Wow air ehf. v Samkeppniseftirlitið (Icelandic Competition Authority), Isavia ohf. and Icelandair ehf.
   (Case E-18/14)
   (2015/C 11/06)
   A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 4 September 2014 from Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavik District Court, Iceland), which was received at the Court Registry on 4 September 2014, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Wow air ehf. v Samkeppniseftirlitið (Icelandic Competition Authority), Isavia ohf. and Icelandair ehf., on the following questions:

               1.

               Does Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93, of 18 January 1993, on common rules for the allocation of slots at Community airports, oblige the Member States to ensure that a coordinator appointed under the provisions of the Regulation is, as regards the execution of his tasks, granted independent administrative power under domestic legislation as part of the executive of the Member State, or does the Member State have discretion to decide the status of the coordinator under domestic legislation?

               2.

               Is it assumed, in the instructions on the handling of complaints concerning the allocation of slots in Article 8(7) and (8) of Regulation (EEC) No 95/93, that all complaints, including complaints based on competition considerations, will be subject to the procedure prescribed therein, or is recital 15 of the preamble to the Regulation to be understood as meaning that the Regulation is to be applied without prejudice to the competition rules of the Treaty, in particular Articles 85 and 86, in such a way that complaints based on competition considerations shall be subject exclusively to the jurisdiction of the competition authorities in the relevant Member State and are therefore to be submitted directly to them?

               3.

               If the competition authority of a Member State issues instructions on the basis of domestic competition legislation, and with reference to Regulation (EEC) No 95/93, with the intention of encouraging competition, is it assumed in the Regulation that these instructions will be issued to the managing body of an airport/competent authority or should these instructions be issued to the coordinator?


title: Case C-291/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Eparkhiako Dikastirio Lefkosias (Cyprus) lodged on 27 May 2013 — Sotiris Papasavvas v O Phileleftheros Dimosia Etairia Ltd, Takis Kounnafi, Giorgos Sertis

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/33

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Eparkhiako Dikastirio Lefkosias (Cyprus) lodged on 27 May 2013 — Sotiris Papasavvas v O Phileleftheros Dimosia Etairia Ltd, Takis Kounnafi, Giorgos Sertis
   (Case C-291/13)
   2013/C 207/56
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Eparkhiako Dikastirio Lefkosias

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Claimant: Sotiris Papasavvas

      Defendants: O Phileleftheros Dimosia Etairia Ltd, Takis Kounnafi, Giorgos Sertis

      Questions referred

               1.

               Bearing in mind that the laws of the Member States on defamation affect the capacity to provide information services by electronic means both at national level and within the European Union, might those laws be regarded as restrictions on the provision of information services for the purposes of applying Directive 2000/31/EC?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, do the provisions of Articles 12, 13 and 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC, on the question of liability, apply to private civil matters, such as civil liability for defamation, or are they limited to civil liability in matters concerning business to consumer transactions?

               3.

               Bearing in mind the purpose of Articles 12, 13 and 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC relating to the liability of information society service providers and the fact that, in many Member States, an action must exist in order for a prohibitory injunction to be granted which will remain in force pending full completion of the proceedings, do those articles create individual rights which may be pleaded as defences in law in a civil action for defamation, or must they operate as an obstacle in law to the bringing of such actions?

               4.

               Do the definitions of ‘information society service’ and ‘service provider’ in Article 2 of Directive 2000/31/EC and Article 1(2) of Directive 98/34/EC, as amended by Directive 98/48/EC, cover online information services the remuneration for which is provided not directly by the recipient, but indirectly by means of commercial advertisements posted on the website?

               5.

               Bearing in mind the definition of ‘information service provider’, laid down in Article 2 of Directive 2000/31/EC and Article 1(2) of Directive 98/34/EC, as amended by Directive 98/48/EC, could the following, or any of them, be regarded as a ‘mere conduit’ or ‘caching’ or ‘hosting’ for the purposes of Articles 12, 13 and 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC:

                           (a)

                           a newspaper that operates a free website on which the online version of the printed newspaper, with all its articles and advertisements, is posted in pdf format or another similar electronic format;

                           (b)

                           an online newspaper which is freely accessible but the provider obtains money from commercial advertisements posted on the website, where the information contained in the online newspaper comes from the newspaper’s staff and/or freelance journalists;

                           (c)

                           a website which provides (a) or (b) above for a subscription?


title: Case F-33/06: Action brought on  21 March 2006  — Campoli v Commission

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/52

         Action brought on 21 March 2006 — Campoli v Commission
   (Case F-33/06)
   (2006/C 131/94)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Franco Campoli (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Jaume, avocats)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul, first, the decision of the Appointing Authority challenged in the complaint brought by the applicant on 10 August 2005 which, from 1 May 2004, amended the correction coefficient, the household allowance and the flat-rate education allowance applicable to the applicant's pension and, second, the applicant's salary statements in so far as they apply that decision with effect from March 2005;

               —

               Specify to the Appointing Authority the effects of the annulment of the contested decisions, and in particular the application of the correction coefficient, the household allowance and the flat-rate education allowance applicable to the applicant's pension before 1 May 2004, and with retroactive effect from 1 May 2004;

               —

               Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of his action, the applicant advances pleas very similar to those which he had already advanced in Case T-135/05 (1).

      (1)  OJ C 132 of 28.05.2005, p. 33.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Retten i Århus, by a letter of 5 March 1997 in the case of Elly Bach v. Århus Amtskommune (Case C-97/97)

text:
No C 131/10            r EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     26 . 4 . 97
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                            country ( Denmark ), travels to a third EU country
                                                                                ( England ), where the person suffers injury, to receive
                                                                                hospital treatment free-of-charge in the second EU
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as                            country ( Denmark ) for the injury suffered, where the
those in Case C-56/97 (2 ); the period prescribed by the                        hospital treatment has been interrupted by the citizen
Directive expired on 23 July 1993 .                                             returning to Denmark where the hospital treatment is
                                                                                continued ? It is assumed that what is involved is a
                                                                                continuous course of treatment.
(') OJ No L 228 , 17. 8 . 1991 , p . 70 .
( 2 ) OJ No C 108 , 5 . 4 . 1997, p . 12 .
                                                                           (') OJ, English Special Edition 1971 ( II ), p. 416 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling from Retten i Arhus, by
a letter of 5 March 1997 in the case of Elly Bach v. Arhus
                             Amtskommune                                   Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
                                                                           Oberlandesgericht Wien by order of that court of
                             ( Case C-97/97)                               28 February 1997 in the case of Verein zur Forderung des
                               ( 97/C 131 /24 )                            freien Wettbewerbs im Medienwesen v. TV Spielfilm
                                                                                Verlag Gesellschaft mbH
                                                                                ( Case C-99/97 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                                ( 97/C 131 /25 )
European Communities by letter of 5 March 1997 from
 Retten i Arhus (Arhus Court), which was received at the
 Court Registry on 7 March 1997, for a preliminary ruling
 in the case between Elly Bach and Arhus Amtskommune
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of
 on the following questions :
                                                                           the European Communities by an order of the
                                                                           Oberlandesgericht Wien ( Higher Regional Court, Vienna )
                                                                           of 28 February 1997, which was received at the Court
 1 . In the application of Article 31 of Regulation ( EEC )                Registry on 7 March 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the
       No 1408/71           and Annex VI thereto, point B ( 2 ),           case of Verein zur Forderung des freien Wettbewerbs im
       should that provision, including the requirement as                 Medienwesen v. TV Spielfilm Verlag Gesellschaft mbH on
       regards a stay, be interpreted strictly according to its            the following question:
       wording, or may the provision be interpreted as
       meaning that an EU citizen is always entitled to
       medical treatment free-of-charge in one Member State,
       even if the injury occurred, and the first part of the               Is Article 30 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as
       medical treatment was given, in another Member                       precluding application of legislation of Member State A
       State ?                                                              prohibiting an undertaking established in Member State B
                                                                            from selling in Member State A a periodically published
                                                                            magazine produced in Member State B if it contains prize
       In the reply, it should be assumed that what is                      puzzles or competitions which are lawfully organized in
       involved is a continuous course of treatment which                   Member State B ?
       was interrupted in one Member State and continued in
       another. It is thus not a question of follow-up
       treatment .
  2 . May the term 'reside' in Article 31 be interpreted
       purposively in order to cover an EU country where a
       citizen, under other EU legislation, lawfully stays for              Action brought on 7 March 1997 by the Commission of
       up to six months of the year in a summer house                       the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
       property ? It should be noted that the stay is not of an                                          Luxembourg
        occupational character, and that the citizen is not                                           Case C-100/97 )
        registered in that country.
                                                                                ( 97/C 131 /26
   3 . Regardless of the scope of Article 31 in Regulation
        No 1408/71 , is not Annex VI, point B ( 2 ), per se a
        sufficient basis for a citizen resident in one EU country            An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
        ( Spain ), who, during a holiday stay in another EU                  brought before the Court of Justice of the European


title: Case C-355/15: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Bietergemeinschaft Technische Gebäudebetreuung GesmbH und Caverion Österreich GmbH v Universität für Bodenkultur Wien, VAMED Management und Service GmbH & Co. KG in Wien (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 89/665/EEC — Review procedures in the area of public procurement — Article 1(3) — Legal interest in bringing proceedings — Article 2a(2) — Concept of a ‘tenderer concerned’ — Right of a tenderer definitively excluded by the contracting authority to seek review of a subsequent award decision)

text:
               20.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 53/14

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Bietergemeinschaft Technische Gebäudebetreuung GesmbH und Caverion Österreich GmbH v Universität für Bodenkultur Wien, VAMED Management und Service GmbH & Co. KG in Wien
   (Case C-355/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 89/665/EEC - Review procedures in the area of public procurement - Article 1(3) - Legal interest in bringing proceedings - Article 2a(2) - Concept of a ‘tenderer concerned’ - Right of a tenderer definitively excluded by the contracting authority to seek review of a subsequent award decision))
   (2017/C 053/16)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bietergemeinschaft Technische Gebäudebetreuung GesmbH und Caverion Österreich GmbH

      Defendants: Universität für Bodenkultur Wien, VAMED Management und Service GmbH & Co. KG in Wien

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 1(3) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Directive 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007, must be interpreted as not precluding a tenderer who has been excluded from a public procurement procedure by a decision of the contracting authority which has become final from being refused access to a review of the decision awarding the public contract concerned and of the conclusion of the contract where only that unsuccessful tenderer and the successful tenderer submitted bids and the unsuccessful tenderer maintains that the successful tenderer’s bid should also have been rejected.

      (1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) by order of that court of 31 July 1998, in the case of H. J. Banks & Company Ltd against 1. The Coal Authority and 2. Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Case C-390/98)

text:
C 20/16              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      23.1.1999
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal                 Ð the Commission Decision of 21 December 1994
(England and Wales) by order of that court of 31 July                         authorising the acquisition of Central and
1998, in the case of H. J. Banks & Company Ltd against                        Northern Mining Limited by RJB Mining plc.,
1. The Coal Authority and 2. Secretary of State for Trade
                         and Industry
                                                                          Ð the communications sent by DGXVII of the
                      (Case C-390/98)                                         Commission to NALOO dated 4 May and 13 July
                                                                              1995?
                       (1999/C 20/25)
                                                                     4. As a matter of Community law, does the fact that
                                                                          Banks or NALOO did not:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Court of
Appeal (England and Wales) of 31 July 1998, which was                     a) challenge, under Article 33 of the ECSC Treaty,
received at the Court Registry on 3 November 1998, for a                      Commission Decision 94/995/ECSC or the
preliminary ruling in the case of H. J. Banks & Company                       Commission Decision of 21 December 1994
Ltd against 1. The Coal Authority and 2. Secretary of                         authorising the acquisition of Central and
State for Trade and Industry, on the following questions:                     Northern Mining Limited by RJB Mining plc or
                                                                              the letters sent to DGXVII of the Commission to
                                                                              NALOO dated 4 May and 14 July 1995; and/or
1. Is the difference of treatment referred to in the
    judgments of the Court of Appeal capable of                           b) invoke the procedure provided for in Article 35 of
    constituting:                                                             the ECSC Treaty in order to require the
                                                                              Commission to deal with the issues now raised in
                                                                              the proceedings before the national court
    Ð discrimination       between      producers'     within
        Article 4(b) of the ECSC Treaty;
                                                                          preclude Banks from raising alleged breaches of
                                                                          Article 4(b) or 4(c) of the ECSC Treaty, or of
                                                                          Commission        Decision      No     3632/93/ECSC        in
    Ð a special charge' within Article 4(c) of the same                  proceedings in the national courts?
        Treaty; and/or
                                                                     (1) Commission Decision No 3632/93/ECSC of 28 December
                                                                         1993 establishing Community rules for State aid to the coal
    Ð aid' within Article 4(c) of the same Treaty or                    industry (OJ L 329, 30.12.1993, p. 12).
        within Article 1 of Commission Decision                      (2) Commission Decision 94/995/ECSC of 3 November 1994
        No 3632/93/ECSC (1)                                              ruling on financial measures by the United Kingdom in respect
                                                                         of the coal industry in the 1994/95 and 1995/96 financial year
                                                                         (OJ L 379, 31.12.1994, p. 6).
2. Do paragraphs (b) or (c) of Article 4 of the ECSC
    Treaty or paragraphs (1) or (4) of Article 9 of
    Commission Decision No 3632/93/ECSC produce
    direct effects and confer on private undertakings the
    right, enforceable in national courts, to defend a claim
    for mining royalties made by a public body and to
                                                                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
    claim restitution of royalties paid to it, in particular in
                                                                     Cagliari, by order of that court of 23 March 1998 in the
    the absence of a Commission Decision made pursuant
                                                                     case of Azienda Agricola Monte Arcosu Srl against
    to Article 67 or Article 88 of the ECSC Treaty or
                                                                     Regione       Autonoma         della   Sardegna,     Organismo
    Commission Decision No 3632/93/ECSC or otherwise
                                                                     Comprensoriale No 24 della Sardegna and ERSAT Ð Ente
    to the effect that the matters alleged constitute
                                                                           Regionale per l'Assistenza Tecnica in Agricoltura
    discrimination', a special charge' or aid'?
                                                                                (Case C-403/98)
                                                                                (1999/C 20/26)
3. If so, may a national court determine that there is
    discrimination' within the meaning of paragraph (b)
    of Article 4 of the ECSC Treaty or a special charge'            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    within the meaning of paragraph (c) thereof or aid'             European Communities by order of the Tribunale di
    within the meaning of paragraph (c) thereof or of                Cagliari of 23 March 1998, received at the Court Registry
    Article 1 of Commission Decision No 3632/93/ECSC                 on 13 November 1998, for a preliminary ruling on the
    notwithstanding:                                                 interpretation of Article 2(5) of Council Regulation (EEC)
                                                                     No 797/85 (1) of 12 March 1985 and Article 5(5) of
                                                                     subsequent Council Regulation (EEC) No 2328/91 (2) of
    Ð Commission Decision 94/995/ECSC (2);                           15 July 1991 in the case of Azienda Agricola Monte