title: References for preliminary rulings by the Tribunale di Genova by order of that court of 15 May 1996 in the cases of 1) Carlo Bagnasco and Others v. Banca Popolare di Novara Soc. coop. arl and 2) Carlo Bagnasco and Others v. Cassa di Risparmio di Genova Imperia (Carige) SpA (Case C-215/96 and C-216/96)

text:
24 . 8 . 96             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 247/9
Under Finnish national legislation on the taxation of energy,          The applicant claims that the Court should :
excise duty on electricity is levied in Finland on electrical
energy produced there, the amount of the duty depending on             1 . declare that, by failing to establish or communicate the
the method of production of the electricity . On electricity                  programmes for the reduction of pollution of waters as
produced by nuclear power, the excise duty charged is a                       regards the substances referred to in List II in the Annex
basic duty of 1,5 p/kWh and an additional duty of 0,9                         to Directive 76/464/EEC on pollution caused by certain
p/kWh . On electricity produced by water power, the excise                    dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic
duty charged is only an additional duty of 0,4 p/kWh . On                     environment of the Community ( '), as required by
electricity produced by other methods, for example from                       Article 7 thereof, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to
coal, excise duty is charged on the basis of the amount of                    fulfil its obligations under that Directive;
input materials used to produce the electricity . On electrical
                                                                       2 . order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs .
energy produced by some methods, for example in a
generator with an output below two megavolt-amperes, no
excise duty at all is charged . On imported electricity, the           The pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support are
                                                                       the same as those in Case C-20 5/96 H.
excise duty charged, regardless of the method of production
of the electricity, is a basic duty of 1,3 p/kWh and an
                                                                       (') OJ No L 129 , 18 . 5 . 1976 , p. 23 .
additional duty of 0,9 p/kWh . The excise duty on electricity
                                                                       ( 2 ) See page 7 of this Official Journal .
is thus determined with respect to imported electricity on a
different basis from that applied to electricity produced in
Finland . The levying of excise duties determined on the basis
of the method of production of the energy is founded on
environmental grounds in the drafting history of the law .
The amount of duty chargeable on imported electricity is               References for preliminary rulings by the Tribunale di
not, however, determined on the basis of the method of                 Genova by order of that court of 15 May 1996 in the cases of
production of the electricity . The excise duty chargeable on          1 ) Carlo Bagnasco and Others v. Banca Popolare di Novara
imported electricity is higher than the lowest excise duty             Soc. coop, arl and 2 ) Carlo Bagnasco and Others v. Cassa di
chargeable on electricity produced in Finland, but lower                          Risparmio di Genova Imperia ( Carige ) SpA
than the highest excise duty chargeable on electricity                                    ( Case C-215 /96 and C-216/96 )
produced in Finland . The excise duty on imported electricity                                       96/C 247/ 18 )
is levied on the importer, whereas the excise duty relating to
electricity produced in Finland is levied on the electricity           References have been made to the Court of Justice of the
producer .                                                             European Communities by orders from the Tribunale di
                                                                       Genova ( District Court, Genoa ) of 15 May 1 996 , received at
1 . Is excise duty on electricity, determined for imported             the Court Registry on 21 June 1996 , for preliminary rulings
     electricity in the manner described above , to be regarded        in the cases of, first, Carlo Bagnasco and Others v. Banca
     as a charge having equivalent effect to a customs duty,           Popolare di Novara Soc . coop , arl and , second, Carlo
     within the meaning of Articles 9 and 12 of the EC                 Bagnasco and Others v. Cassa di Risparmio di Genova
     Treaty ?                                                          Imperia ( Carige ) SpA on the following questions :
2 . If it is not a charge having equivalent effect to a customs        1 . Whether the Norme Bancarie Uniforme ( Uniform Bank
     duty , is excise duty on electricity , determined for                    Rules ) laid down by the ABI (') for its members in
     imported electricity in the manner described above, to                   relation to contracts for the opening of current account
     be regarded as a tax which discriminates against imports                 credit facilities — since they are laid down and applied in
     from other Member States, within the meaning of                        ■ a uniform and binding manner by the banks belonging
     Article 95 of the EC Treaty ?                                            to the ABI — are compatible with Article 85 of the
                                                                              Treaty, where they make the credit facility subject to
                                                                              conditions for determination of an interest rate which is
                                                                              not previously determined and is not determinable by
                                                                              the customer, and they are liable adversely to affect trade
                                                                              between the Member States and have as their object and
                                                                              effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of
                                                                              competition within the Common Market;
Action brought on 25 June 1996 by the Commission of the
   European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain                   2 . What effects any finding of incompatibility in
                         ( Case C-2 14/96 )                                   accordance with point 1 may have on the corresponding
                           ( 96/C 247/ 17 )                                   clauses of the contracts for the opening of a current
                                                                              account credit facility , concluded ' downstream ' by
                                                                              member banks with individual customers, since , as a
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                     group , the banks belonging to the ABI may be regarded ,
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                           within the meaning and for the purposes of Article 86 of
25 June 1996 by the Commission of the European                                the Treaty, as holding a joint dominant position in the
Communities, represented by Richard B. Wainwright and                         national credit market, whose specific application of the
Fernando Castillo de la Torre, with an address for service in                 rules in question ( in connection with determination of
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,                          the interest payable on the loan ) is regarded as an
Wagner Centre .                                                               abuse;
 ---pagebreak---  No C 247/ 10           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      24 . 8 . 96
 3 . Whether the NBU laid down by the ABI for its members                      points 8 and 9 of the Annex thereto, save in respect of
      in relation to the 'all-embracing' guarantee covering the                mercury and lead,
      credit facility — since they are applied in a uniform and
      binding manner by the member banks — are, taken as a            — order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the
      whole, compatible with Article 85 of the Treaty, in                  proceedings .
      relation to the individual clauses discussed in the
      grounds of this order, in that they are liable adversely to
      affect trade between the Member States and have as              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
      their object and effect the prevention , restriction or
      distortion of competition within the Common                     Article 189 of the EC Treaty, in providing that a directive is
      Market;                                                         binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon the Member
                                                                      State to which it is addressed , places Member States under
4 . What effects any finding of incompatibility in                    an obligation to comply with the time-limits set by directives
      accordance with point 3 may have on the corresponding           for their implementation . In the present case, when the
     clauses of the ' all-embracing' guarantee agreements and         time-limit expired on 5 November 1981 , the Italian
     on the agreements themselves concluded 'downstream '             Republic had not adopted the measures necessary to comply
                                                                      in full with Directive 79/923/EEC .
      by individual banks, since, as a group, the banks
      belonging to the ABI may be regarded , within the
     meaning and for the purposes of Article 86 of the Treaty,        (') OJ No L 281 , 10 . 11 . 1979 , p . 47 .
     as holding a joint dominant position in the national
     credit market, whose specific application of the rules in
     question is regarded as an abuse .
(') Associazione Bancaria Italiana .
                                                                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
                                                                     Genova by order of that court of 1 8 June 1 996 EDIS-Edilizia
                                                                     Industriale Siderurgica Sri ( formerly EDIS SpA ) v. Ministero
                                                                                delle Finanze
                                                                                ( Case C-231 /96 )
Action brought on 28 June 1996 by the Commission of the                                          ( 96/C 247/20 )
    European Communities against the Italian Republic
                         ( Case C-225/96 )                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                           ( 96/C 247/19 )                           European Communities by order of 18 June 1996 of the
                                                                     Tribunale di Genova ( District Court, Genoa ), which was
                                                                     received at the Court Registry on 8 July 1996 , for a
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before            preliminary ruling in the case of EDIS-Edilizia Industriale
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                  Siderurgica Sri ( formerly EDIS SpA ) v. Ministero delle
28 June 1996 by the Commission of the European                       Finanze on the following questions :
Communities, represented by Antonio Aresu of its Legal
Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in             1 . For the purposes of amplifying and clarifying the ruling
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, also                 given in the judgment of 20 April 1 993 in Joined Cases
of the Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg .                          C-71 /91 and C-178/91 Ponente Carni SpA v.
                                                                          Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato ('), must the
The applicant claims that the Court should :                              provisions of the Treaty be interpreted as precluding the
                                                                          introduction and/or the retention by a Member State of
                                                                          a national provision such as that introduced by the
— declare that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                          Italian legislature in paragraph 2 of Article 13 of Decree
     obligations under the EC Treaty, by :
                                                                          No 641 of the President of the Republic of 26 October
                                                                          1972 where the effect of the application of that
     — not designating waters as needing protection or                    provision is to limit the temporal effects of a judgment
         improvement in order to support shellfish life and               given by the Court of Justice ?
         growth, in accordance with Article 4 of Directive
         79/923/EEC ('), and/or not communicating such               2 . Is Article 5 of the EC Treaty, as interpreted in the
         designations to the Commission , pursuant to                     Court's case-law, compatible with a national provision
         Article 13 of that Directive,
                                                                          ( Article 1 3 of Presidential Decree No 641 /72 ), which, as
                                                                          regards the procedural rules relating to judicial actions
     — not establishing programmes for the reduction of                   seeking to secure repayment of charges paid in breach of
         pollution, in accordance with Article 5 of Directive             Council Directive 69/335/EEC ( 2 ), provides for a
         79/923/EEC ,                                                     three-year prescription period running from the date of
                                                                          payment, where such prescription period is not laid
     — not setting values, in accordance with Article 3 of                down by national law for claims for the recovery of sums
         Directive 79/923/EEC, for the parameters listed at               undulv paid as between private persons ?


title: Case C-474/09 P: Appeal brought on 26 November 2009 by Territorio Histórico de Vizcaya — Diputación Foral de Vizcaya against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, extended composition) delivered on 9 September 2009 in Joined Cases T-227/01 to T-229/01 and T-265/01, T-266/01 and T-270/01 Territorio Histórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava and Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco — Gobierno Vasco and Others v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               13.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/15

         Appeal brought on 26 November 2009 by Territorio Histórico de Vizcaya — Diputación Foral de Vizcaya against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, extended composition) delivered on 9 September 2009 in Joined Cases T-227/01 to T-229/01 and T-265/01, T-266/01 and T-270/01 Territorio Histórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava and Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco — Gobierno Vasco and Others v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-474/09 P)
   2010/C 37/16
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Territorio Histórico de Vizcaya — Diputación Foral de Vizcaya (represented by: I. Sáenz-Cortabarría Fernández and M. Morales Isasi, lawyers)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco — Goberierno Vasco, Territorio Histórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava, Territorio Histórico de Guipúzcoa — Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa, Confederación Empresarial Vasca (Confebask), Cámara Oficial de Comercio, Industria y Navegación de Vizcaya, Cámera Oficial de Comercio e Industria de Álava, Cámara Oficial de Comercio, Industria y Navegación de Guipúzcoa, Commission of the European Communities and Comunidad Autónoma de la Rioja

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare the present appeal to be admissible and well founded;

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal;

               —

               grant the form of order sought at first instance, that is the alternative claim to annul Article 3 of the contested decision;

               —

               alternatively, refer the case back to the Court of First Instance and, order it to examine the evidence rejected;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal and the intervener, the Comunidad Autónoma de la Rioja, to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               The CFI erred in law by holding, in this case, that there are no exceptional circumstances which give rise to a legitimate expectation that the tax measure at issue is lawful, so as to preclude an order to recover the aid in accordance with Article 14(1) of Regulation No 659/1999 (1) which relates to the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations. The CFI distorted the issues in the case and infringed the rule that the parties should be heard. It also misinterpreted the case-law concerning the duty to give reasons for a decision.
               Neither the formal difference between the tax measure at issue and the measure which is the subject of Decision 93/337 (2), nor the fact that the Commission could have justified the selectivity criterion on information other than that which is explicitly mentioned in Decision 93/337, nor the finding of incompatibility in Decision 93/337, constitute sufficient reasons in law for the CFI not to determine whether there existed an exceptional circumstance that by itself or in combination with other circumstances in this case could preclude the Commission from ordering the recovery of the aid to which the contested decision relates.
               By holding that the measures at issue in Joined Cases T-30/01 to T-32/01 and T-86/02 to T-88/02 are not analogous to the tax measure at issue for technical tax reasons and the because of amount of the subsidy, the CFI has distorted the issues between the parties, has disregarded the rule that the parties should be heard and has clearly misinterpreted the case-law specifically relating to the duty to state reasons.
               The CFI erred in law by holding that the Commission's attitude with respect to the tax exemption and/or the 1993 tax credit — which, as is clear from the from the case file, has not been assessed by the CFI, contrary to the Rules of Procedure — does not constitute an exceptional circumstance which could have justified some kind of legitimate expectation that the tax measure was lawful which would have precluded the recovery of the aid under Article 14(1) of Regulation on the ground that it would be contrary to the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.

               2.

               The CFI erred in law by failing to comply with the procedural rules regarding the assessment of evidence and by deciding not to require disclosure of the evidence requested by the applicant with respect to certain Commission documents that, in the light of the arguments used by the CFI in order to dismiss the applicant's application, are essential to the defence of its interests. The CFI also infringed the right to a fair trial, the principle of equality of arms and the rights of defence.
               The CFI, by failing to order the disclosure of the evidence requested, has infringed the fundamental right to a fair trial to which the applicant is entitled, by refusing to assess evidence which is essential to the applicant's case thereby infringing its rights of defence, since its application was dismissed on the ground that it had not proved what it specifically sought to establish with the evidence which was not produced: if not the Commission's final position with respect to the complaint of 1994 against the tax rules of 1993 (including a tax credit), which are measures which are essentially the same as the contested measure, which rejected that complaint, then at least the attitude of the Commission which would constitute an exceptional circumstance in so far as its conduct gave rise to a legitimate expectation that the 1993 tax measures were lawful, which led to the adoption of the contested tax measure in 1996.

      (1)  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).

      (2)  Commission Decision of 10 May 1993 concerning a scheme of tax concessions for investment in the Basque country (OJ 1993 L 134, p. 25).


title: Case T-102/09: Action brought on 1 September 2010 — Elosta v Commission

text:
               15.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/26

         Action brought on 1 September 2010 — Elosta v Commission
   (Case T-102/09)
   ()
   2011/C 13/52
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Abdelrazag Elosta (Pinner, United Kingdom) (represented by: E. Grieves, Barrister, and A. McMurdie, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Regulation (EC) No 1330/2008 (1) insofar as it relates to the applicant;

               —

               Order the defendant to immediately remove the applicant from the annex to the said regulation; and

               —

               Order the defendant and/or the Council of the European Union to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the applicant and any sums advanced by way of legal aid by the cashier of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By means of the present application, the applicant seeks, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, the annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1330/2008, insofar as the name of the applicant has been placed on the list of persons and entities to which certain restrictive measures were imposed.
   In support of his action, the applicant submits the following pleas in law:

               Firstly, the Commission has failed to independently review the basis of the applicant’s inclusion in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 (2) at any point, or required any reasons or evidence for that inclusion.

               In addition, the Commission has failed to provide to the applicant with any reasons at all and then failed to provide any adequate reasons justifying his inclusion in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 in breach of his right to an effective judicial remedy, the right to defend himself and in breach of his rights to property under the European Convention on Human Rights.

               Finally, the continued inclusion in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is irrational given that: (i) there were and are no reasons available which would satisfy the relevant criteria for inclusion in the said annex; (ii) the United Kingdom’s government’s position is that the applicant no longer fulfils the relevant criteria; and (iii) the judgments by a specialized UK Court that the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group has not merged with the Al-Qaida network and/or every person associated with the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group has an Al-Qaida violent global jihadist ideology.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1330/2008 of 22 December 2008 amending for the 103rd time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban (OJ 2008 L 345, p. 60).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan (OJ 2002 L 139, p. 9).


title: Case C-443/17: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 24 July 2017 — Abraxis Bioscience LLC v Comptroller General of Patents

text:
               18.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 309/30

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 24 July 2017 — Abraxis Bioscience LLC v Comptroller General of Patents
   (Case C-443/17)
   (2017/C 309/41)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Abraxis Bioscience LLC

      Defendant: Comptroller General of Patents

      Question referred

   Is Article 3(d) of the SPC Regulation (1) to be interpreted as permitting the grant of an SPC where the marketing authorisation referred to in Article 3(b) is the first authorisation within the scope of the basic patent to place the product on the market as a medicinal product and where the product is a new formulation of an old active ingredient?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (OJ L 152, p. 1)


title: Case C-393/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 18 August 2014  — Dalmine SpA v Comitato nazionale per la gestione della Direttiva 2003/87/CE and Others

text:
               20.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 372/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 18 August 2014 — Dalmine SpA v Comitato nazionale per la gestione della Direttiva 2003/87/CE and Others
   (Case C-393/14)
   2014/C 372/13
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Dalmine SpA

      Defendants: Comitato nazionale per la gestione della Direttiva 2003/87/CE, Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico

      Questions referred

               1)

               Is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU (1) of 5 September 2013 invalid for not having taken into account, in the calculation of the allowances to be allocated free of charge, the percentage of emissions associated with waste gas combustion — or steel processing gas — or of emissions associated with the heat produced by cogeneration, thereby infringing Article 290 TFEU and Article 10a(1),(4) and (5) of Directive 2003/87/EC (2), going beyond the limits of the powers conferred by that directive and at variance with its objectives (to encourage more energy-efficient techniques and to protect the needs of economic development and employment)?

               2)

               Is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid, in the light of Article 6 TEU, on grounds of its inconsistency with Article 1 of the Additional Protocol to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘the ECHR’) and Article 17 of the ECHR, owing to undue failure to respect the applicant companies’ legitimate expectation of remaining in possession of a good consisting of the number of the allowances allocated to them on a preliminary basis and to which they are entitled on the basis of Directive 2003/87, thereby depriving those companies of the economic benefit associated with that good?

               3)

               Furthermore, is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid as regards its definition of the cross-sectoral correction factor, given that the decision infringes the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union owing to its failure to provide an adequate statement of reasons?

               4)

               Is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid as regards its definition of the cross-sectoral correction factor, given that the decision infringes Article 10a(5) of Directive 2003/87/EC, fails to respect the principle of proportionality enshrined in Article 5(4) TEU and is also vitiated by failure to carry out a proper inquiry and error of assessment, in the light of the fact that the calculation of the maximum number of allowances to be allocated free of charge (relevant for the purposes of defining a uniform cross-sectoral correction factor) did not take into account the effects of the changes in the interpretation of the term ‘combustion plant’ between the first phase (2005-2007) and the second phase (2008-2012) of the implementation of Directive 2003/87/EC?

               5)

               Is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid as regards its definition of the cross-sectoral correction factor, on grounds of infringement of Articles 10a(5) and 9a(2) of Directive 2003/87/EC, and also on account of the failure to carry out a proper inquiry and error of assessment, in view of the fact that the calculation of the maximum number of allowances to be allocated free of charge (relevant for the purposes of defining a uniform cross-sectoral correction factor) was made on the basis of data, provided by the Member States, which are mutually inconsistent because based on different interpretations of Article 9a(2) of Directive 2003/87/EC?

               6)

               Is European Commission decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid as regards its definition of the cross-sectoral correction factor, on grounds of infringement of the procedural rules under Articles 10a(1) and 23(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC?

      (1)  Commission Decision of 5 September 2013 concerning national implementation measures for the transitional free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances in accordance with Article 11(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2013 L 240, p. 27).

      (2)  Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 July 2005 in Case T-242/02, The Sunrider Corp. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Word mark TOP — Refusal of registration — Article 115(4) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Definition of ‘written communications’ — Infringement of the principle that decisions must be adopted within a reasonable time — Infringement of the rights of the defence — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 40/94)

text:
               17.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 229/13

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 13 July 2005
   in Case T-242/02, The Sunrider Corp. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Word mark TOP - Refusal of registration - Article 115(4) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Definition of ‘written communications’ - Infringement of the principle that decisions must be adopted within a reasonable time - Infringement of the rights of the defence - Absolute grounds for refusal - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 40/94)
   (2005/C 229/26)
   Language of the case: Greek
   In Case T-242/02: The Sunrider Corp., established in Torrance, California (United States), represented initially by M. Bra and subsequently by N. Dontas, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: O. Waelbroeck and P. Geroukalos) — action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 May 2002 (Case R 314/1999-1), concerning an application for registration of the word mark TOP as a Community trade mark — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of H. Legal, President, P. Mengozzi and I. Wiszniewska-Białecka, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 13 July 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 261 of 26.10.2002.


C 233/20               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    28.9.2002
        Removal from the register of Case C-289/00 ( 1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-210/01 ( 1)
                        (2002/C 233/32)                                                         (2002/C 233/35)
By order of 3 July 2002 the President of the Court of Justice of      By order of 15 July 2002 the President of the First Chamber of
the European Communities ordered the removal from the                 the Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
register of Case C-289/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling         removal from the register of Case C-210/01: Commission of
by the Corte d’appello di Genova): Fincantieri — Cantieri             the European Communities v Italian Republic.
Navali Italiani SpA and Finmeccanica SpA v Federico Bianchi
and Others.
                                                                      (1 ) OJ C 212 of 28.7.2001.
( 1) OJ C 285 of 7.10.2000.
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-458/01 ( 1)
        Removal from the register of Case   C-352/00 ( 1)
                                                                                (2002/C 233/36)
                        (2002/C 233/33)
                                                                      By order of 19 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
By order of 2 July 2002 the President of the Court of Justice of      of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
the European Communities ordered the removal from the                 register of Case C-458/01: Commission of the European
register of Case C-352/00: Italian Republic v Council of the          Communities v Italian Republic.
European Union.
                                                                      (1 ) OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.
( 1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-50/02 (1)
        Removal from the register of Case C-86/01 (1)
                        (2002/C 233/34)                                                         (2002/C 233/37)
By order of 2 July 2002 the President of the Court of Justice of      By order of 11 July 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
the European Communities ordered the removal from the                 of the European Communities ordered the removal from
register of Case C-86/01: Commission of the European Com-             the register of Case C-50/02: Commission of the European
munities v Republic of Austria.                                       Communities v Italian Republic.
( 1) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.                                           (1 ) OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.


title: Case F-116/13: Action brought on 30 November 2013 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/46

         Action brought on 30 November 2013 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-116/13)
   2014/C 45/87
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision concerning the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights into the European Union pension scheme which applies the new GIPs relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare Article 9 of the General Implementing Provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations unlawful and, consequently, inapplicable;

               —

               Annul the decision of 18 June 2013 to increase the pension rights acquired by the applicant before his entry into the service, as part of the transfer thereof into the pension scheme of the institutions of the European Union, by application of the General Implementing Provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-16/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 19 January 2015  — María Elena Pérez López v Servicio Madrileño de Salud (Comunidad de Madrid)

text:
               23.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/8

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 19 January 2015 — María Elena Pérez López v Servicio Madrileño de Salud (Comunidad de Madrid)
   (Case C-16/15)
   (2015/C 096/10)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo de Madrid

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: María Elena Pérez López

      Defendant: Servicio Madrileño de Salud (Comunidad de Madrid)

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 9.3 of State Law 55/2003 of 16 December on the framework regulations for health service staff regulated under administrative law (‘regulated staff’) infringe the Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP on 18 March 1999, annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC (1) of 28 June 1999, and is it therefore inapplicable, because it encourages abuse arising from the use of successive appointments of ‘occasional’ (eventual) regulated staff, in that it:

                           —

                           does not fix a maximum total duration of successive appointments of occasional regulated staff, nor a maximum number of renewals of those appointments;

                           —

                           leaves to the discretion of the authorities the decision whether to create permanent posts where more than two appointments are made for the provision of the same services for a total period of 12 months or more in a period of two years; and

                           —

                           allows appointments of occasional regulated staff to be made without requiring that the notices of appointment indicate the specific objective reasons of a temporary, occasional or extraordinary nature justifying those appointments?

               2.

               Does Article 11.7 of the Order of the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Finance of the Community of Madrid of 28 January 2013 infringe the Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP on 18 March 1999, annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999, and is it therefore inapplicable, because it provides that ‘at the end of the appointment period, termination of service and payment of all outstanding remuneration corresponding to the period of services provided must be carried out in all cases, including those in which the person concerned is subsequently to be reappointed’, irrespective, therefore, of whether or not the specific, objective reasons justifying the appointment have come to an end, as required under Clause 3.1 of the Framework Agreement?

               3.

               Is it in accordance with the intended purpose of the Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP on 18 March 1999, annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 for the third subparagraph of Article 9.3 of State Law 55/2003 of 16 December on the framework regulations for health service staff regulated under administrative law to be interpreted to the effect that, if more than two appointments are made for the provision of the same services for a total period of 12 months or more in a period of two years, a permanent post must be created in the heath-care institution, so that the worker appointed on an occasional basis becomes appointed to cover that post on an interim basis?

               4.

               Is the application to occasional regulated staff of the same severance pay provided for in the case of workers with occasional employment contracts, given that the two situations are substantially identical, in accordance with the intended purpose of the Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP on 18 March 1999, annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999, since it would not make sense for workers of the same type, providing services in the same entity (the Servicio Madrileño de Salud (Madrid Health Service)), carrying out the same tasks and meeting the same temporary needs to be treated differently upon the termination of their employment, in the absence of any apparent reason that would prevent comparisons being made between fixed-term relationships in order to avoid discriminatory situations?

      (1)  OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43.


title: Case T-572/11 RII: Order of the President of the General Court of 23 April 2012 — Hassan v Council (Interim relief — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Syria — Freezing of funds and economic resources — Application for interim relief — Fresh application — Absence of new facts — Inadmissibility)

text:
               16.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 174/23

         Order of the President of the General Court of 23 April 2012 — Hassan v Council
   (Case T-572/11 RII)
   (Interim relief - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Syria - Freezing of funds and economic resources - Application for interim relief - Fresh application - Absence of new facts - Inadmissibility)
   2012/C 174/39
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Samir Hassan (Damas, Syria) (represented by: É. Morgan de Rivery and E. Lagathu, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Kyriakopoulou and M. Vitsentzatos, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for interim relief, in particular an application for suspension of operation of the restrictive measures instituted by the Council against Syria, in so far as those measures affect the applicant.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim relief is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case C-212/09: Action brought on 11 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/35

         Action brought on 11 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-212/09)
   2009/C 180/61
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Braun, M. Teles Romão and P. Guerra e Andrade, Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by maintaining the State’s special rights and those of other public bodies or the Portuguese public-sector in GALP Energia, SGPS S.A., the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 56 EC and 43 EC.

               —

               Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Under the Portuguese legislation, the State holds golden shares in GALP. The State has the right to appoint the Chairman of the Board of Directors. In matters within its competence, company resolutions are subject to its approval.
   Any resolutions which seek to alter the articles of association, authorise the entering into joint contracts between companies, stipulating a controlling company or joint control, or which may in any way endanger the supply of oil, gas or derivatives thereof to the country, are subject to the State’s approval.
   The Commission considers that both the State’s right to appoint a director with powers to approve resolutions and its right of veto in significant corporate actions severely restrict direct investment and portfolio investment.
   Those special rights of the State constitute State measures since the golden shares are not the result of the normal application of company law.
   Secondary Community law does not allow the State special rights in retailers of oil and of petroleum products. GALP has no responsibility for guaranteeing supply. The State sought to make GALP a company whose centre of decision-making is in Portugal. In any event, the Portuguese State has failed to comply with the principle of proportionality since the measures in question are not apt to ensure the attainment of the objectives pursued and go beyond what is necessary in order to attain them.


title: Case C-516/03: Action brought on 9 December 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
C 59/4                  EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                            6.3.2004
Action brought on 9 December 2003 by the Commission                         public waste collector or by an undertaking which carries out
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic                    the operations listed in Annex II A or B of the directive. It
                                                                            follows that the Italian Republic has also failed to fulfil its
                                                                            obligations under Article 8 of the directive.
                          (Case C-516/03)
                           (2004/C 59/06)
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 December
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Sala de lo
represented by M. Konstantinidis, member of its Legal Service,              Social del Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad
and R. Amorosi, judge of the District Court on secondment to                Valenciana by order of that Court of 27 November 2003
that Service, acting as Agent.                                              in the case of José Vincente Olaso Valero against Fondo
                                                                                de Garantía Salarial
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Case C-520/03)
—     Declare that, by not adopting the measures necessary to
      ensure that waste generated in Campolungo (Ascoli
      Piceno) is recovered or disposed of without endangering                                          (2004/C 59/07)
      human health and without using processes or methods
      which could harm the environment and, by not taking
      the measures necessary to ensure that any holder of waste
      so generated has it handled by a private or public waste
      collector or by an undertaking which carries out the                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      operations listed in Annex II A or B of the directive, or             European Communities by order of the Sala de lo Social del
      recovers or disposes of it himself, the Italian Republic has          Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Valenciana
      failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4 and 8 of            (Chamber for Social and Labour Matters of the High Court of
      Directive 75/442/EEC on waste as amended by Directive                 Justice of the Community of Valencia) of 27 November 2003,
      91/156/EEC;                                                           received at the Court Registry on 12 December 2003, for a
                                                                            preliminary ruling in the case of José Vincente Olaso Valero
—     Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                          against Fondo de Garantía Salarial on the following questions:
                                                                            A)    Does the compensation claimed for unfair dismissal fall
                                                                                within the scope of Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                   1980 (1) in its version prior to that as amended by
                                                                                Directive 2000/74/EC (2)?
According to the Commission, the Italian Republic has adopted
                                                                            B)    In the context of respect for the principles of equality and
no measures to ensure that the waste discharged in Campolun-
                                                                                non-discrimination, can the rules set out in Article 33(2)
go is recovered or disposed of without endangering human
                                                                                of the consolidated text of the Ley de Estatuto de los
health and without using processes or methods which could
                                                                                Trabajadores, inasmuch as they require a ruling or an
harm the environment. The Italian authorities submit merely
                                                                                administrative decision in order for Fogasa to pay the
that the progressive mineralisation of waste raises questions
                                                                                appropriate compensation, be considered objectively
about the production of 35 m3 of lechate per day, without
                                                                                unreasonable and, accordingly, inapplicable?
giving any clear observations on the merits, and before
expressly admitting that ‘the production and therefore dif-
fusion of lechate may continue indefinitely’.
                                                                            (1) Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the
                                                                                approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the
                                                                                protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their
The Commission further points out that, according to
                                                                                employer (OJ L 283 of 28.10.1980, p. 23).
Article 175(4) of the EC Treaty, the Member States are                      (2) Directive 2002/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the
responsible for financing and implementing the environment                      Council of 23 September 2002 amending Council Directive 80/
policy so that the lack of sufficient financial resources cannot                987/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States
be used as a justification for the failure to take specific                     relating to the protection of employees in the event of the
measures to make good the site. It must therefore be concluded                  insolvency of their employer (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ L 270
that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under            of 8.10.2002, p. 10).
Article 4 of the directive. Furthermore, the Italian Republic has
failed to adopt the measures necessary to ensure that any
holder of waste so generated has it handled by a private or


title: Case T-58/01: Judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2009 — Solvay v Commission (Competition — Restrictive practices — Market in soda ash in the Community — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Agreement guaranteeing to an undertaking a minimum tonnage of sales in a Member State and the purchase of sufficient quantities to achieve that minimum tonnage — Expiry of limitation period applicable to Commission power to impose fines or sanctions — Reasonable time — Essential procedural requirements — Effect on trade between Member States — Right of access to the file — Fine — Gravity and duration of the infringement — Aggravating and mitigating circumstances)

text:
               13.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/31

         Judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2009 — Solvay v Commission
   (Case T-58/01) (1)

   (Competition - Restrictive practices - Market in soda ash in the Community - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Agreement guaranteeing to an undertaking a minimum tonnage of sales in a Member State and the purchase of sufficient quantities to achieve that minimum tonnage - Expiry of limitation period applicable to Commission power to impose fines or sanctions - Reasonable time - Essential procedural requirements - Effect on trade between Member States - Right of access to the file - Fine - Gravity and duration of the infringement - Aggravating and mitigating circumstances)
   2010/C 37/39
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Solvay (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Simont, P.-A- Foriers, G. Block, F. Louis and A. Vallery, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Oliver and J. Currall, Agents, assisted by N. Coutrelis, lawyer)

      Re:

   First, application for annulment of Commission Decision 2003/5/EC of 13 December 2000 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/33.133 — B: Soda ash — Solvay, CFK) (OJ 2003 L 10, p. 1) and, in the alternative, application for annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision 2003/5/EC of 13 December 2000 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/33.133 — B: Soda ash — Solvay, CFK) to the extent that it finds that Solvay SA infringed the provisions of Article 81 EC in 1990;

               2.

               Fixes the fine imposed on Solvay at EUR 2.25 million;

               3.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder.

      (1)  OJ C 161, 2.6.2001.


title: Case C-290/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Firenze (Italy) lodged on 12 June 2014  — Criminal proceedings against Skerdjan Celaj

text:
               1.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 292/18

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Firenze (Italy) lodged on 12 June 2014 — Criminal proceedings against Skerdjan Celaj
   (Case C-290/14)
   2014/C 292/22
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Firenze

      Party to the main proceedings

   Skerdjan Celaj

      Question referred

   Do the provisions of Directive 2008/115 (1) preclude a Member State’s legislation which provides for the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment of up to four years on an illegally staying third-country national [Or.10] who, having been returned to his country of origin neither as a criminal law sanction nor as a consequence of a criminal law sanction, has re-entered the territory of the State in breach of a lawful re-entry ban but has not been the subject of the coercive measures provided for by Article 8 of Directive 2008/115 with a view to his swift and effective removal?

      (1)  Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98).


title: Case C-30/07: Action brought on 29 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Hungary

text:
               24.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/8

         Action brought on 29 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Hungary
   (Case C-30/07)
   (2007/C 69/16)
   Language of the case: Hungarian
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Condou-Durande and B.D. Simon, acting as Agent(s))

      Defendant(s): Republic of Hungary
   Form of order sought

               —

               A declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents (1) or by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Republic of Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               —

               An order that the Republic of Hungary pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for the implementation of the directive in national law expired on 23 January 2006.

      (1)  OJ L 16, 2003, p. 44.


title: Case F-124/13: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 26 March 2015 — CW v Parliament (Civil service — Officials — Action for annulment — Article 12a of the Staff Regulations — Internal Rules for the Advisory Committee on Harassment and its Prevention in the Workplace — Article 24 of the Staff Regulations — Request for assistance — Manifest errors of assessment — None — Role and powers of the Advisory Committee on Harassment and its Prevention in the Workplace — Option for an official to approach the Committee — Action for damages)

text:
               11.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/41

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 26 March 2015 — CW v Parliament
   (Case F-124/13) (1)

   ((Civil service - Officials - Action for annulment - Article 12a of the Staff Regulations - Internal Rules for the Advisory Committee on Harassment and its Prevention in the Workplace - Article 24 of the Staff Regulations - Request for assistance - Manifest errors of assessment - None - Role and powers of the Advisory Committee on Harassment and its Prevention in the Workplace - Option for an official to approach the Committee - Action for damages))
   (2015/C 155/59)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: CW (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: E. Taneva and M. Dean, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of the decision of the Appointing Authority refusing to grant the request for assistance submitted by the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Declares that the European Parliament is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay half of the costs incurred by CW;

               3.

               Declares that CW is to bear half of her own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 52, 22.2.2014, p. 54.


title: Case T-364/17: Action brought on 5 June 2017 — Bielawski v EUIPO (HOUSE OF CARS)

text:
               31.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/44

         Action brought on 5 June 2017 — Bielawski v EUIPO (HOUSE OF CARS)
   (Case T-364/17)
   (2017/C 249/59)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Marcin Bielawski (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: M. Kondrat, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘HOUSE OF CARS’ — Application for registration No 15 172 638

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 March 2017 in Case R 2047/2016-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision; or

               —

               amend the contested decision by finding that there is no absolute ground for refusal in regard to the mark applied for;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-223/06 P: Appeal brought on 23 August 2006 by the European Parliament against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal made on 13 July 2006 in Case F-102/05 Ole Eistrup v European Parliament

text:
               14.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/15

         Appeal brought on 23 August 2006 by the European Parliament against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal made on 13 July 2006 in Case F-102/05 Ole Eistrup v European Parliament
   (Case T-223/06 P)
   (2006/C 249/35)
   Language of the case: Danish
   Parties

      Appellant: European Parliament (Strasbourg, France) (represented by H. von Hertzen and L. Knudsen, Agents)

      Other party to the appeal proceedings: Ole Eistrup
   Form of order sought by the appellant
   The appellant submits that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal;

               —

               Itself give a ruling in the case by upholding the appellant's preliminary objection;

               —

               Dismiss the action brought by Ole Eistrup;

               —

               Give a ruling as to costs in accordance with the relevant rules.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of its appeal the European Parliament submits that the European Union Civil Service Tribunal infringed the first subparagraph of Article 43(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance by not dismissing the case, despite the fact that the application did not bear the signature of the applicant's lawyer but rather a facsimile stamp reproducing the lawyer's signature.
   The European Parliament also submits that the Civil Service Tribunal set aside the principle of legal certainty by making application of the first subparagraph of Article 43(1) of the Rules of Procedure dependent on whether there was a disproportionate failure to guarantee access to the courts. It is thus impossible to predict whether it will be possible to examine a case on its merits.


title: Case T-439/13: Action brought on 20 August 2013 — Fard and Sarkandi v Council

text:
               14.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 367/31

         Action brought on 20 August 2013 — Fard and Sarkandi v Council
   (Case T-439/13)
   2013/C 367/54
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Mohammad Moghaddami Fard (Tehran, Iran); and Ahmad Sarkandi (United Arab Emirates) (represented by: M. Taher, Solicitor, M. Lester, Barrister, and S. Kentridge, QC)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Council Decision 2013/270/CFSP of 6 June 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 156, p.10) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 522/2013 of 6 June 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 156, p.3);

               —

               Order that the Council pays the applicants’ costs.

      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 that the Council erred manifestly in its assessment that any of the listing criteria has been fulfilled as regards either of the applicants, and that there is no valid legal basis for the applicants’ designation.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has purported to impose a travel ban on the applicants without a proper legal basis.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons for including the applicants in the contested measures.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to safeguard the applicants’ rights of defence and to effective judicial review,

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council’s decision to designate the applicants has infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicants’ fundamental rights, including their right to protection of their property, family life, business, and reputation.


title: Case C-357/09 PPU: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 30 November 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — Said Shamilovich Kadzoev (Huchbarov) (Visas, asylum, immigration and other policies related to free movement of persons — Directive 2008/115/EC — Return of illegally staying third-country nationals — Article 15(4) to (6) — Period of detention — Taking into account the period during which the execution of a removal decision was suspended — Concept of reasonable prospect of removal )

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/17

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 30 November 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — Said Shamilovich Kadzoev (Huchbarov)
   (Case C-357/09 PPU) (1)

   (Visas, asylum, immigration and other policies related to free movement of persons - Directive 2008/115/EC - Return of illegally staying third-country nationals - Article 15(4) to (6) - Period of detention - Taking into account the period during which the execution of a removal decision was suspended - Concept of ‘reasonable prospect of removal’)
   2010/C 24/28
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria

      Party to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Said Shamilovich Kadzoev (Huchbarov)

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Interpretation of Article 15(4), (5) and (6) of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98) — Exceeding of the maximum period of detention, laid down by Article 15 of that directive, in relation to a third-country national in an irregular situation — Exceeding of that maximum duration at the date of entry into force of the directive, but before its transposition into national law, which places no time-limits on detention — Application of the rules of the directive after their transposition into national law and absence of retroactive effect for pending cases — Calculation of maximum period of detention not taking account of time elapsing during proceedings challenging the national authorities' removal decision — Whether exceeding of that duration permissible if based on lack of identification documents and means of subsistence and on the aggressive conduct of the person concerned — Meaning of “reasonable prospect of removal”

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 15(5) and (6) of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals must be interpreted as meaning that the maximum duration of detention laid down in those provisions must include a period of detention completed in connection with a removal procedure commenced before the rules in that directive become applicable.

               2.

               A period during which a person has been held in a detention centre on the basis of a decision taken pursuant to the provisions of national and Community law concerning asylum seekers may not be regarded as detention for the purpose of removal within the meaning of Article 15 of Decision 2008/115.

               3.

               Article 15(5) and (6) of Directive 2008/115 must be interpreted as meaning that the period during which execution of the decree of deportation was suspended because of a judicial review procedure brought against that decree by the person concerned is to be taken into account in calculating the period of detention for the purpose of removal, where the person concerned continued to be held in a detention facility during that procedure.

               4.

               Article 15(4) of Directive 2008/115 must be interpreted as not being applicable where the possibilities of extending the periods of detention provided for in Article 15(6) of Directive 2008/115 have been exhausted at the time when a judicial review of the detention of the person concerned is conducted.

               5.

               Article 15(4) of Directive 2008/115 must be interpreted as meaning that only a real prospect that removal can be carried out successfully, having regard to the periods laid down in Article 15(5) and (6), corresponds to a reasonable prospect of removal, and that that reasonable prospect does not exist where it appears unlikely that the person concerned will be admitted to a third country, having regard to those periods.

               6.

               Article 15(4) and (6) of Directive 2008/115 must be interpreted as not allowing, where the maximum period of detention laid down by that directive has expired, the person concerned not to be released immediately on the grounds that he is not in possession of valid documents, his conduct is aggressive, and he has no means of supporting himself and no accommodation or means supplied by the Member State for that purpose.

      (1)  OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.


title: Case C-162/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy), lodged on 2 April 2012 — Airport Shuttle Express scarl and Giovanni Panarisi v Comune di Grottaferrata

text:
               9.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy), lodged on 2 April 2012 — Airport Shuttle Express scarl and Giovanni Panarisi v Comune di Grottaferrata
   (Case C-162/12)
   2012/C 165/23
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Airport Shuttle Express scarl and Giovanni Panarisi

      Defendant: Comune di Grottaferrata

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do Article 49 TFEU, Article 3 TEU, Articles 3, 4, 5 and 6 TFEU, Articles 101 and 102 TFEU and Regulation (EEC) No 2454/1992 (1) and Regulation (EC) No 12/1998 (2) preclude the application of Articles 3(3) and 11 of Law No 21 of 1992 in so far as the latter provisions respectively state that ‘3. The registered office of the carrier, and the garage, must be located, exclusively, within the territory of the municipality which issued the authorisation’ and that ‘… Bookings of car and driver hire shall take place at the garage. Each individual car and driver hire must begin and end at the garage located in the municipality where the authorisation was issued, returning to that garage, although the collection of the user and the user’s arrival at his destination may take place also in other municipalities …’?

               2.

               Do Article 49 TFEU, Article 3 TEU, Articles 3, 4, 5 and 6 TFEU, Articles 101 and 102 TFEU and Regulation (EEC) No 2454/1992 and Regulation (EC) No 12/1998 preclude the application of Articles 5 and 10 of Lazio Regional Law No 58 of 26 October 1993, in so far as the latter provisions respectively state that ‘… Users shall be collected, or the service shall begin, within the territory of the municipality which issued the authorisation’ and that ‘… Users shall be collected and the service shall begin exclusively within the territory of the municipality which issued the licence or authorisation and the service shall be provided to any destination, subject to the consent of the driver in the case of destinations beyond the municipal boundaries.’?

      (1)  OJ 1992 L 251, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 1998 L 4, p. 10.


title: Case C-430/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Adria (Italy) lodged on 18 August 2011 — Criminal proceedings against Sagor MD

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/25

      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Adria (Italy) lodged on 18 August 2011 — Criminal proceedings against Sagor MD
      (Case C-430/11)
      (2012/C 25/44)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Tribunale di Adria

         Party to the main proceedings

      Sagor MD

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  In the light of the principles of sincere cooperation and the effectiveness of directives, do Articles 2, 4, 6, 7 and 8 of Directive 2008/115/EC (1) preclude the possibility that a third-country national illegally staying in a Member State may be liable to a fine, for which home detention is substituted by way of criminal-law sanction, solely as a consequence of that person’s illegal entry and stay, even before any failure to comply with a removal order issued by the administrative authorities?

                  2.

                  In the light of the principles of sincere cooperation and the effectiveness of directives, do Articles 2, 15 and 16 of Directive 2008/115/EC preclude the possibility that, subsequent to the adoption of the directive, a Member State may enact legislation which provides that a third-country national illegally staying in that Member State may be liable to a fine, for which an enforceable order for expulsion with immediate effect is substituted by way of criminal-law sanction, without respecting the procedure and rights of the foreign national laid down in the directive?

                  3.

                  Does the principle of sincere cooperation established in Article 4(3) TEU preclude national rules adopted during the period prescribed for transposition of a directive in order to circumvent or, in any event, limit the scope of the directive, and what measures must the national court adopt in the event that it concludes that there was such an objective?

         (1)  OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 November 2004 in Case C-467/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart): Inan Cetinkaya v Land Baden-Württemberg (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Freedom of movement for workers — Articles 7, first indent, and 14(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council — Right of residence of the child of a Turkish worker after he has attained his majority — Conditions of an expulsion order — Criminal convictions)

text:
               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/11

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 11 November 2004
   in Case C-467/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart): Inan Cetinkaya v Land Baden-Württemberg (1)

   (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Freedom of movement for workers - Articles 7, first indent, and 14(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council - Right of residence of the child of a Turkish worker after he has attained his majority - Conditions of an expulsion order - Criminal convictions)
   (2005/C 6/18)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-467/02: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart (Germany), made by decision of 19 December 2002, received at the Court on 27 December 2002, in the proceedings between Inan Cetinkaya and Land Baden-Württemberg - the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and N. Colneric, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 November 2004, in which it has ruled:

               1.

               The first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association adopted by the Association Council set up by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey must be interpreted as applying to a person who has attained his majority and is the child of a Turkish worker duly registered as belonging to the labour force of the host Member State, even though that person was born in and has always resided in the host State.

               2.

               The first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 precludes the rights conferred by that provision on a Turkish national in Mr Cetinkaya's situation from being limited, after the imposition of a custodial sentence followed by a course of detoxication, on the ground of prolonged absence from the labour force.

               3.

               Article 14 of Decision No 1/80 precludes national courts, when reviewing the lawfulness of the expulsion of a Turkish national, from not taking into consideration factual matters which occurred after the final decision of the competent authorities and which no longer justify a limitation of the rights of the person concerned within the meaning of that provision.

      (1)   OJ C 70 of 22.3.2003.


title: Case C-138/07: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 February 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Belgische Staat v N.V. Cobelfret (Directive 90/435/EEC — Article 4(1) — Direct effect — National legislation designed to prevent double taxation of distributed profits — Deduction of the amount of dividends received from a parent company's basis of assessment only in so far as it has made taxable profits)

text:
               4.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/3

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 February 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Belgische Staat v N.V. Cobelfret
   (Case C-138/07) (1)

   (Directive 90/435/EEC - Article 4(1) - Direct effect - National legislation designed to prevent double taxation of distributed profits - Deduction of the amount of dividends received from a parent company's basis of assessment only in so far as it has made taxable profits)
   (2009/C 82/05)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hof van beroep te Antwerpen
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Belgische Staat

      Respondent: N.V. Cobelfret
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hof van beroep te Antwerpen — Interpretation of Article 4 of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States (OJ 1990 L 225, p. 6) — National provisions designed to prevent double taxation of distributed dividends — Conditions
   Operative part of the judgment
   The first indent of Article 4(1) of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that dividends received by a parent company are to be included in its basis of assessment in order subsequently to be deducted from that basis in the amount of 95 %, in so far as, for the tax period in question, the parent company has a positive profit balance after deduction of other exempted profits.
   The first indent of Article 4(1) of Directive 90/435 is unconditional and sufficiently precise to be capable of being relied on before national courts.

      (1)  OJ C 117, 26.5.2007.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 19 March 1996 in the case of Südzucker AG Mannheim/Ochsenfurt v. Hauptzollamt Mannheim (Case C-161/96)

text:
6 . 7 . 96          I EN |                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 197/13
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of               persons residing in another Member State are liable to pay
Justice, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of            compulsory contributions, even though their entitlement to
3 May 1996, in the case of The Queen against Ministry of              benefits is simultaneously excluded or suspended because of
Agriculture Fisheries and Food and The Commissioners for              their place of residence ?
Customs & Excise, ex parte: The National Farmers' Union,
David Burnett and Sons Limited, R. S. and E. Wright
Limited, Anglo Beef Processors Limited, United Kingdom
Genetics (a firm), Wyjac Calves Limited, International
Traders Ferry Limited, MFP International Limited,                     Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Interstate Truck Rental Limited and Vian Exports Limited,             Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 19 March 1996 in
Interveners: Anglo Dutch Meat Exports Limited, Beck Food              the case of Siidzucker AG Mannheim/Ochsenfurt v.
Group Limited, First City Trading Limited, Weddel Swift                                 Hauptzollamt Mannheim
Limited, Carrex August Limited, Meatal Supplies                                              ( Case C-161/96 )
(Wholesale Meats ) Limited, Meat Marketing Services ( UK )
Limited, NWL ( Ireland) Limited, Hibernia Foods pic, D. T.                                      ( 96/C 197/25 )
Duggins Limited, Swallow Foods International Limited and
          The British Association of Sheep Exporters                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      European Communities by an order of the Seventh Senate of
                         Case C-157/96 )                              the Bundesfinanzhof ( Federal Finance Court) of 19 March
                          ( 96/C 197/23 )                             1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on 13 May
                                                                      1 996, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Siidzucker AG
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                Mannheim/Ochsenfurt v . Hauptzollamt Mannheim on the
European Communities by an order of the High Court of                 following question:
Justice, Queen's Bench Division, of 3 May 1996 , which was
received at the Court Registry on 8 May 1996 , for a                  Is    Commission     Regulation      ( EEC ) No 2670/81       of
preliminary ruling in the case of the Queen against Ministry          14 September 1981 laying down detailed implementing
of Agriculture Fisheries and Food and the Commissioners               rules in respect of sugar production in excess of the quota
for Customs & Excise, ex parte: The National Farmers'                 ( OJ L 262, 1981 , p . 14 ) in conjunction with Commission
Union and others , Interveners : Anglo Dutch Meat Exports             Regulation ( EEC ) No 3183/80 of 3 December 1980 laying
Limited and others, on the following question:                        down common detailed rules for the application of the
                                                                      system of import and export licences and advance fixing
Is Article 1 of Commission Decision 96/239/EC of 27 March             certificates for agricultural products ( OJ L 338 , 1980, p . 1 )
 1996 on emergency measures to protect against bovine                 valid, having regard in particular to the Community law
spongiform encephalopathy f 1 ), Official Journal 1996,               principle of proportionality, in so far as its result is that
No L 78 , p. 47, invalid in whole or in part, in particular           sugar is deemed to have been disposed of on the internal
because the Commission lacked the power or else misused               market — that being the basis for levying the charge on
the power to adopt the Commission Decision or because it              sugar production — if it has actually been exported but
infringes the principle of proportionality ?                          without completion of the customs formalities, and proof
                                                                      consequently cannot be furnished by means of copy No 1 of
 H OJ No L 78 , 28 . 3 . 1996 , p . 47 .                              the export licence with the attributions and endorsements of
                                                                      the customs authorities ?
 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht
 Karlsruhe by order of that court of 28 March 1996 in the              Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
 case of Manfred Molenaar and Barbara Fath-Molenaar v.                Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 7 March 1996 in
      Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse Baden-Wiirttemberg                   the case of A. Racke GmbH & Co. v. Hauptzollamt
                                                                                Mainz
                        ( Case C-160/96 )
                           ( 96/C 197/24 )                                                    ( Case C-162/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 197/26 )
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
 European Communities by an order of the Eleventh                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
 Chamber of the Sozialgericht ( Social Court) Karlsruhe of             European Communities by a an order of the Seventh Senate
 28 March 1996, which was received at the Court Registry               of the Bundesfinanzhof ( Federal Finance Court) of 7 March
 on 13 May 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of              1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on 13 May
 Manfred      Molenaar       and   Barbara  Fath-Molenaar      v.      1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of A. Racke
 Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse (general local health                     GmbH & Co . v . Hauptzollamt Mainz on the following
 insurance fund ) Baden-Wiirttemberg on the following                  questions :
 question :
                                                                        1 . Is Council Regulation (EEC ) No 3300/91 of
 Are Articles 6 and 48 ( 2 ) of the EEC Treaty to be interpreted            11 November 1991 suspending the trade concessions
 as restricting the right of a Member State to set up a social              provided for by the Cooperation Agreement between
 security system covering the risk of need of care as part of               the European Economic Community and the Socialist
 statutory compulsory insurance arrangements under which                    Federal Republic of Yugoslavia ( ] ) valid ?


title: Case C-67/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht (Germany) lodged on 10 February 2014  — Jobcenter Berlin Neukölln v Nazifa Alimanovic and Others

text:
               12.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht (Germany) lodged on 10 February 2014 — Jobcenter Berlin Neukölln v Nazifa Alimanovic and Others
   (Case C-67/14)
   2014/C 142/19
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundessozialgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Jobcenter Berlin Neukölln

      Respondents: Nazifa Alimanovic, Sonita Alimanovic, Valentina Alimanovic, Valentino Alimanovic

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the principle of equal treatment under Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (1) — with the exception of the clause in Article 70(4) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 excluding the provision of benefits outside the Member State of residence — also apply to the special non-contributory cash benefits referred to in Article 70(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004?

               2.

               If the first question is answered in the affirmative: may the principle of equal treatment laid down in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 be limited by provisions of national legislation implementing Article 24(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC (2) which do not under any circumstances allow access to those benefits in the case where the right of residence of the European Union citizen from another Member State arises solely out of the search for employment, and, if so, to what extent may that principle be so limited?

               3.

               Does Article 45(2) TFEU, in conjunction with Article 18 TFEU, preclude a national provision which does not under any circumstances allow the grant of a social benefit which is intended to ensure subsistence and to facilitate access to the labour market to European Union citizens who can invoke the exercise of their right of free movement as job-seekers in the case where those citizens enjoy a right of residence arising solely out of the search for employment, irrespective of their link with the host Member State?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1).

      (2)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77).


title: Case T-199/08: Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2011 — Ziegler v Commission (Competition — Cartels — International removal services market in Belgium — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Price-fixing — Market-sharing — Bid rigging — Appreciable effect on trade — Fines — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines)

text:
               30.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2011 — Ziegler v Commission
   (Case T-199/08) (1)

   (Competition - Cartels - International removal services market in Belgium - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price-fixing - Market-sharing - Bid rigging - Appreciable effect on trade - Fines - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines)
   2011/C 226/47
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Ziegler SA (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.-L. Lodomez and J. Lodomez, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by A. Bouquet and O. Beynet, and subsequently by A. Bouquet and N. von Lingen, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 926 final of 11 March 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.543 — International Removal Services), and, in the alternative, the annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Ziegler SA to pay the costs, including those relating to the interim proceedings before the Court.

      (1)  OJ C 183, 19.7.2008.


title: Case C-15/14 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 June 2015 — European Commission v MOL Magyar Olaj- és Gázipari Nyrt. (Appeals — State aid — Agreement between Hungary and the oil and gas company MOL relating to mining fees in connection with the extraction of hydrocarbons — Subsequent amendment to the statutory rules increasing the rate of the fees — Increase in fees not applied to MOL — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market — Selective nature)

text:
               20.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/14

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 June 2015 — European Commission v MOL Magyar Olaj- és Gázipari Nyrt.
   (Case C-15/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeals - State aid - Agreement between Hungary and the oil and gas company MOL relating to mining fees in connection with the extraction of hydrocarbons - Subsequent amendment to the statutory rules increasing the rate of the fees - Increase in fees not applied to MOL - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market - Selective nature))
   (2015/C 236/18)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and K. Talabér-Ritz, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: MOL Magyar Olaj- és Gázipari Nyrt. (represented by: N. Niejahr, Rechtsanwältin, and F. Carlin, Barrister)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 61, 1.3.2014.


title: Case C-31/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 June 2016 — Photo USA Electronic Graphic, Inc. v Council of the European Union, European Commission, Ancàp SpA, Cerame-Unie AISBL, Confindustria Ceramica, Verband der Keramischen Industrie eV (Appeal — Dumping — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 412/2013 — Imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in China — Definitive anti-dumping duty)

text:
               8.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/9

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 June 2016 — Photo USA Electronic Graphic, Inc. v Council of the European Union, European Commission, Ancàp SpA, Cerame-Unie AISBL, Confindustria Ceramica, Verband der Keramischen Industrie eV
   (Case C-31/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Dumping - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 412/2013 - Imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in China - Definitive anti-dumping duty))
   (2016/C 287/11)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Photo USA Electronic Graphic, Inc. (represented by: K. Adamantopoulos, avocat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented initially by B. Driessen and S. Boelaert, and subsequently by H. Marcos Fraile, acting as Agent, B. O’Connor, Solicitor, and S. Gubel, avocat), European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and M. França, acting as Agents), Ancàp SpA, Cerame-Unie AISBL, Confindustria Ceramica, Verband der Keramischen Industrie eV (represented by: R. Bierwagen, Rechtsanwalt)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Photo USA Electronic Graphic Inc. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.


title: Case C-71/15 P: Order of the Vice-President of the Court of 18 December 2015 — Court of Justice of the European Union v Kendrion NV, supported by: European Commission

text:
               29.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/10

         Order of the Vice-President of the Court of 18 December 2015 — Court of Justice of the European Union v Kendrion NV, supported by: European Commission
   (Case C-71/15 P) (1)

   (2016/C 078/12)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   The Vice-President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 107, 30.3.2015.