title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 4 December 1997 in Case C-225/96: Commission of the European Communities v. Italian Republic (Failure to fulfil obligations - Failure to transpose Directive 79/923/EEC - Quality required of shellfish waters)

text:
C 55/2                 EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      20.2.98
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                3. orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                         (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                     (1) OJ C 247, 24.8.1996.
                      of 4 December 1997
in   Case     C-207/96: Commission of the            European
              Communities v. Italian Republic (1)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð
Equal treatment for men and women Ð Prohibition of
                            nightwork)
                           (98/C 55/02)                                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 4 December 1997
                 (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                     in   Case   C-225/96: Commission of the              European
                                                                                Communities v. Italian Republic (1)
                                                                     (Failure to fulfil obligations Ð Failure to transpose
                                                                     Directive 79/923/EEC Ð Quality required of shellfish
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                waters)
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (98/C 55/03)
In Case C-207/96: Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: Marie Wolfcarius and Enrico
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
Altieri) v. Italian Republic (Agent: Professor Umberto
Leanza, assisted by Oscar Fiumara) Ð application for a
declaration that, by not adopting within the prescribed
period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
necessary in order to comply with Council Directive 76/
207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
the principle of equal treatment for men and women as                         published in the European Court Reports)
regards access to employment, vocational training and
promotion, and working conditions (OJ L 39, 14.2.1976,
p. 40), and by retaining in national law rules prohibiting
nightwork by women, contrary to Article 5 of that
Directive, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its             In Case C-225/96: Commission of the European
obligations under Community law Ð the Court (Fifth                   Communities (Agents: initially by Antonio Aresu, and
Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the                 subsequently by Paolo Stancanelli) v. Italian Republic
First Chamber, acting as President of the Fifth Chamber,             (Agent: Professor Umberto Leanza, assisted by Pier
J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, D. A. O. Edward                           Giorgio Ferri) Ð application for a declaration that Ð by
(Rapporteur), P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; C. O. Lenz,              failing to designate waters needing protection or
Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a                   improvement in order to support shellfish life and growth
judgment on 4 December 1997, in which it:                            in accordance with Article 4 of Council Directive 79/923/
                                                                     EEC of 30 October 1979 on the quality required of
                                                                     shellfish waters (OJ L 281, 10.11.1979, p. 47) and/or to
                                                                     notify such designation to the Commission in accordance
                                                                     with Article 13 of Directive 79/923/EEC; Ð by failing to
1. declares that, by retaining in national law rules
                                                                     establish programmes in order to reduce pollution in
    prohibiting nightwork by women, contrary to Article 5
                                                                     accordance with Article 5 of Directive 79/923/EEC, and
    of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976
                                                                     Ð by failing to set values for the parameters listed at
    on the implementation of the principle of equal
                                                                     points 8 and 9 of the Annex to Directive 79/923/EEC,
    treatment for men and women as regards access to
                                                                     other than for mercury and lead, in accordance with
    employment, vocational training and promotion, and
                                                                     Article 3 of Directive 79/923/EEC, the Italian Republic
    working conditions, the Italian Republic has failed to
                                                                     has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty Ð
    fulfil its obligations under Community law;
                                                                     the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann,
                                                                     President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida
                                                                     (Rapporteur), D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet and P.
                                                                     Jann, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; R. Grass,
2. dismisses the        remainder    of  the   application  as       Registrar, has given a judgment on 4 December 1997, in
    inadmissible;                                                    which it declares that:
 ---pagebreak--- 20.2.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 55/3
1. Ð By failing to designate waters needing protection               (Case C-258/96) Ð on the interpretation of Article 2(2)(c)
        or improvement in order to support shellfish life            of Council Directive 91/533/EEC of 14 October 1991 on
        and growth in accordance with Article 4 of                   an employer's obligation to inform employees of the
        Council Directive 79/923/EEC of 30 October                   conditions applicable to the contract or employment
        1979 on the quality required of shellfish waters,            relationship (OJ L 288, 18.10.1991, p. 32) Ð the Court
                                                                     (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet (Rapporteur),
                                                                     President of the First Chamber, acting as President of the
     Ð by failing to establish programmes in order to                Fifth Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, D. A. O.
        reduce pollution in accordance with Article 5 of             Edward, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; G. Tesauro,
        Directive 79/923/EEC, and                                    Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator,
                                                                     for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 4 December
                                                                     1997, in which it has ruled:
     Ð by failing to set values for the parameters listed at
        points 8 and 9 of the Annex to Directive 79/923/
        EEC other than for mercury and lead, in
        accordance with Article 3 of Directive 79/923/               1. The notification referred to in Article 2(1) of Council
        EEC, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its               Directive 91/533/EEC of 14 October 1991 on an
        obligations under Directive 79/923.                              employer's obligation to inform employees of the
                                                                         conditions applicable to the contract or employment
                                                                         relationship, in so far as it informs an employee of the
2. The Italian Republic is ordered to pay the costs.                     essential aspects of the contract or employment
                                                                         relationship and, in particular, of the points listed in
                                                                         Article 2(2)(c), enjoys the same presumption as to its
(1) OJ C 247, 24.8.1996.
                                                                         correctness as would attach, in domestic law, to any
                                                                         similar document drawn up by the employer and
                                                                         communicated to the employee. The employer must
                                                                         none the less be allowed to bring any evidence to the
                                                                         contrary, by showing that the information in the
                                                                         notification is either inherently incorrect or has been
                                                                         shown to be so in fact.
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       (Fifth Chamber)
                     of 4 December 1997                              2. Individuals may rely on Article 2(2)(c) of Directive 91/
                                                                         533/EEC directly before the national courts as against
in Joined Cases C-253/96 to C-258/96 (references for a                   the State and any organisations or bodies which are
preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm):                  subject to the authority or control of the State or have
Helmut Kampelmann and Others v. Landschafts-                             special powers beyond those which result from the
verband Westfalen-Lippe (Cases C-253/96 to C-256/96),                    normal rules applicable to relations between
Stadtwerke Witten GmbH v. Andreas Schade (Case                           individuals, either where the State has failed to
C-257/96) and Klaus Haseley v. Stadtwerke Altena GmbH                    transpose the Directive into national law within the
                     (Case C-258/96) (1)                                 prescribed period or where it has not done so
                                                                         correctly. It is not open to a Member State to
(Obligation to inform employees Ð Directive 91/533/EEC                   transpose Article 2(2)(c)(ii) of the Directive in such a
                      Ð Article 2(2)(c))                                 way as to allow the employer, in every case, to confine
                         (98/C 55/04)                                    the information to be notified to the employee to a
                                                                         mere job designation.
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                     3. Article 9(2) of the Directive, properly construed, does
                                                                         not preclude the Member States from exempting an
                                                                         employer from the obligation to give an employee
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                         written notification of the essential aspects of the
         published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                         contract or employment relationship, even at the
                                                                         employee's request, when those aspects are already set
                                                                         out in a document or contract of employment drawn
In Joined Cases C-253/96 to C-258/96: references to the                  up before the measures transposing the Directive
Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the                        entered into force.
Landesarbeitsgericht (Regional Labour Court), Hamm,
Germany, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
pending before that court between Helmut Kampelmann                  (1) OJ C 294, 5.10.1996.
and Others and Landschaftsverband Westfalen-Lippe
(Cases C-253/96 to C-256/96), between Stadtwerke
Witten GmbH and Andreas Schade (Case C-257/96) and
between Klaus Haseley and Stadtwerke Altena GmbH


title: Case C-633/11 P: Appeal brought on 8 December 2011 by Grand Hotel Abi d’Oru SpA against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Fourth Chamber) on 20 September 2011 in Joined Cases T-394/08, T-408/08, T-453/08 and T-454/08 Regione autonoma della Sardegna and Others v Commission

text:
               21.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/10

         Appeal brought on 8 December 2011 by Grand Hotel Abi d’Oru SpA against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Fourth Chamber) on 20 September 2011 in Joined Cases T-394/08, T-408/08, T-453/08 and T-454/08 Regione autonoma della Sardegna and Others v Commission
   (Case C-633/11 P)
   2012/C 118/15
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Grand Hotel Abi d’Oru SpA (represented by: D. Dodaro and R. F. Masuri, avvocati)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Region autonoma della Sardegna, Selene di Alessandra Cannas Sas and others

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 20 September 2011 in Joined Cases T-394/08, T-408/08, T-453/08 and T-454/08 in so far as it:

                           (a)

                           rejects the appellant’s complaint alleging breach of the obligation to notify the adjustment decision laid down in Article 254(3) EC and Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (1) (paragraphs 103 to 112 of the judgment);

                           (b)

                           rejects the appellant’s complaint alleging failure to state adequate reasons with regard to the assessment of the incentive effect of the aid at issue (paragraphs 136 to 145 and 218 to 228 of the judgment)

                     on the grounds of distortion of the pleas in law relied on in the application, error of law and illogical and inconsistent reasoning;

               —

               annul Commission Decision 2008/854/EC of 2 July 2008 concerning the aid scheme ‘Regional Law No 9 of 1998 — Misapplication of aid N 272/98’ C/104 (ex NN 158/03 and CP 15/2003) (OJ 2008 L 302, p. 9);

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The judgment under appeal is defective as a result of misapplication of Article 254 EC and Regulation (EC) No 659/99 and illogical and inconsistent reasoning, in so far as it states that ‘the adjustment decision was directed solely at the Italian Republic and not the beneficiaries of the scheme at issue. Consequently, Article 254(3) EC did not require the Commission to notify the adjustment decision to Grand Hotel Abi d’Oru’ (paragraph 107 of the judgment). In the appellant’s view, that reasoning is inconsistent with paragraphs 71 and 72 of the judgment under appeal.
   The judgment under appeal fails to recognise the different functions of an adjustment decision and a decision to open a formal investigation, and the fact that the latter is a step in a procedure that has already been instigated requires, in the appellant’s view, account to be taken of the parties who have in fact already participated in that procedure. The error made by the General Court in equating the adjustment decision to the decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure entailed an erroneous assessment of the scope of application of Article 20(1) of Regulation No 659/1999.
   The judgment under appeal is flawed as a result of distortion of the pleas in law relied on in the application; errors of law and illogical and inconsistent reasoning in so far as the General Court failed to give reasons, even implicitly, for its rejection of the complaint alleging manifest error on the part of the Commission in its assessment of the incentive effect of the aid.
   Lastly, both the Commission in the contested decision and the General Court in the judgment under appeal misinterpreted the appellant’s intentions, attributing to it the aim of contriving to render a decision which referred to a general scheme one that concerned it individually and, as a result of that misunderstanding, incorrectly failed to consider the impact which the factors brought to their attention by the appellant could have had on the assessment of the scope of the aid scheme in general terms.

      (1)  OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1.


title: Case T-357/12: Action brought on 7 August 2012 — Sachi Premium-Outdoor Furniture v OHIM — Gandia Blasco (Armchairs)

text:
               13.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/13

         Action brought on 7 August 2012 — Sachi Premium-Outdoor Furniture v OHIM — Gandia Blasco (Armchairs)
   (Case T-357/12)
   2012/C 311/17
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sachi Premium — Outdoor Furniture, Lda (Estarreja, Portugal) (represented by: M. Oehen Mendes, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gandia Blasco, SA (Valencia, Spain)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and Designs) of 27 April 2012 (R 969/2011-3);

               —

               Declare the contested Community Design No 1512633-0003 invalid; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community design trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: A design for ‘armchairs, loungers’ — registered Community design No 1512633-0003

      Proprietor of the Community design: The applicant

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community design: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal requested the invalidation of the RCD based on Articles 4 to 9 of Council Regulation No 6/2002; Community design registration No 52113-0001, for ‘armchairs’

      Decision of the Invalidity Division: Rejected the application for a declaration of invalidity

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and declared the contested Registered Community design invalid

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 5 to 7 of Council Regulation No 6/2002.


title: Case F-46/08: Action brought on 6 May 2008 — Thoss v Court of Auditors

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/51

         Action brought on 6 May 2008 — Thoss v Court of Auditors
   (Case F-46/08)
   (2008/C 171/103)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Nicole Thoss (Dommeldange, Luxembourg) (represented by: P. Goergen, lawyer)

      Defendant: Court of Auditors of the European Communities
   Subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Annulment of the decision of the Court of Auditors of 20 March 2006 refusing to allocate to the applicant a survivor's pension following the death of her husband.
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Court of Auditors of 20 March 2006 refusing to allocate to the applicant the survivor's pension laid down in Article 16(1) of Regulation 2290/77 and the subsequent decision of 28 September 2006;

               —

               Order the Court of Auditors of the European Communities to allocate to the applicant the survivor's pension laid down in Article 16(1) of Regulation 2290/77 with retroactive effect from 1 December 2003;

               —

               Order the Court of Auditors of the European Communities to pay the costs.


title: Case C-456/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 28 August 2015 — BASF SE v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

text:
               23.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 389/16

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 28 August 2015 — BASF SE v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
   (Case C-456/15)
   (2015/C 389/18)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: BASF SE

      Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Decision 2013/448/EU (1) invalid and contrary to the objectives of Directive 2003/87/EC in so far as it lays down the uniform cross-sectoral correction factor in such a way that, in the determination of the maximum annual amount of allowances under Article 10a(5) of Directive 2003/87/EC (industry cap), emissions from waste gases used for the production of electricity and emissions produced in combined heat and power cogeneration installations were not included?

               2.

               Is Decision 2013/448/EU invalid and contrary to the objectives of Directive 2003/87/EC in so far as it creates an imbalance by excluding emissions associated with the combustion of waste gases and with heat produced in cogeneration from the basis of calculation in Article 10a(5)(a) and (b), whereas free allocation with regard to such emissions from an installation not falling under Article 10a(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC is due in accordance with Article 10a(1) and 10a(4) of Directive 2003/87/EC and Decision 2011/278/EU? (2)

               3.

               Is Decision 2013/448/EU invalid and contrary to the objectives of Directive 2003/87/EC in so far as it lays down the uniform cross-sectoral correction factor in such a way that, in the determination of the maximum annual amount of allowances under Article 10a(5) of Directive 2003/87/EC (industry cap), emissions from installations that first became subject to emissions trading obligations in the second period and emissions from installations that were ‘opted into’ emissions trading were not taken into account?

               4.

               Is Decision 2013/448/EU invalid and contrary to the objectives of Directive 2003/87/EC in so far as it lays down the uniform cross-sectoral correction factor in such a way that, in the determination of the maximum annual amount of allowances under Article 10a(5) of Directive 2003/87/EC (industry cap), emissions from installations that were closed before 30 June 2011 were taken into account as deductible items, whereas emissions from installations that first began to be used in the second period were not included?

               5.

               Is Decision 2013/448/EU invalid and does it infringe the principles, in a State governed by the rule of law, of good administration as laid down in Article 298 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in so far as it lays down the uniform cross-sectoral correction factor, on the ground that the calculation of the correction factor was not made public?

      (1)  2013/448/EU: 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)  2011/278/EU: Commission Decision of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (notified under document C(2011) 2772) (OJ 2011 L 130, p. 1).


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 October 2001 in Case T-333/99: X v European Central Bank (Officials — Servants of the European Central Bank — Jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance — Legality of conditions of employment — Rights of the defence — Dismissal — Harassment — Misuse of the internet)

text:
C 31/8                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      2.2.2002
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
                                                                           Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
                       of 18 October 2001                                  and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: A. von Mühlendahl, D. Schen-
                                                                           nen and S. Laitinen) — application brought against the
                                                                           decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for
       in Case T-333/99: X v European Central Bank (1)
                                                                           Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                           Designs) of 21 September 1999 (Case R 71/1999-3), which
(Officials — Servants of the European Central Bank —                       was notified to the applicant on 28 September 1999 — the
Jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance — Legality of                  Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of
conditions of employment — Rights of the defence —                         A. W. H. Meij, President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges;
     Dismissal — Harassment — Misuse of the internet)                      D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
                                                                           judgment on 19 September 2001, in which it:
                           (2002/C 31/14)
                                                                           1.    Dismisses the action;
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                           2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
In Case T-333/99: X, residing in Frankfurt am Main (Germany),
represented by N. Pflüger, R. Steiner and S. Mittländer, lawyers,          (1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.00.
with an address for service in Luxembourg, against European
Central Bank (Agents: C. Zilioli and V. Saintot and B. Wägen-
baur) — application for annulment of the decision of the
Executive Board of the European Central Bank of 9 November
1999 to continue the suspension of the applicant and to
withhold one half of his basic salary, and of the decision of
18 November 1999 dismissing the applicant — the Court of
First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of J. Azizi, President,
K. Lenaerts and M. Jaeger, Judges; D. Christensen, Adminis-                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 October
2001, in which it:                                                                              of 15 November 2001
1.    Dismisses the action;
                                                                           in Case T-349/00: Giorgio Lebedef v Commission of the
2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.                                             European Communities (1)
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.00.                                                    (Officials — 1974 framework agreement between the Com-
                                                                           mission and the trade unions/staff associations — Revision
                                                                           or modification — Consultation procedure — Introduction
                                                                                of new modalities — Admissibility)
                                                                                (2002/C 31/16)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                     of 19 September 2001
in Case T-336/99: Henkel KGaA v Office for Harmonis-
ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                     In Case T-349/00: Giorgio Lebedef, an official of the Com-
                             (OHIM) (1)                                    mission of the European Communities, residing at Senninger-
                                                                           berg (Luxembourg), represented by G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti,
(Community trade mark — Shape of a product for washing                     avocats, with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Com-
machines or dishwashers — Three-dimensional mark —                         mission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Valsesia
Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation                and J. Currall) — application for annulment of the ‘Operational
                          (EC) No 40/94)                                   Rules on the consultation levels, the consultation body and
                                                                           related procedures’ agreed between the Commission and the
                           (2002/C 31/15)                                  majority of the trade unions/staff associations on 19 January
                                                                           2000 or, alternatively, of the composition of the consultation
                                                                           body as provided for by those rules in so far as it excludes the
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                           trade union ‘Action & Défense’ from that body — the Court of
                                                                           First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P. Mengozzi,
                                                                           President, and V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges;
In Case T-336/99: Henkel KGaA, established in Düsseldorf                   J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
(Germany), represented by H.F. Wissel and C. Osterrieth,                   judgment on 15 November 2001, in which it:


title: Case C-165/08: Action brought on 17 April 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland

text:
               19.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/11

         Action brought on 17 April 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-165/08)
   (2008/C 183/20)
   Language of the case: Polish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Doherty and A. Szmytkowska, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by introducing a ban on the free movement of seed derived from genetically modified varieties and by prohibiting the registration of genetically modified varieties in the national catalogue of varieties, the Republic of Poland has failed to comply with its obligations under Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) in its entirety, and in particular pursuant to Articles 22 and 23 thereof, as well as its obligations under Council Directive 2002/53/EC (2), and in particular Articles 4(4) and 16 thereof;

               —

               order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The national provision stating that ‘seed derived from genetically modified varieties may not be authorised for marketing within the territory of the Republic of Poland’ is at variance with Directive 2001/18/EC, which lays down the principles governing the bringing onto the market of genetically modified organisms. Article 22 of that directive prohibits the Member States from imposing additional conditions on the marketing of organisms which have been authorised at Community level, while Article 23 of the directive provides for restrictions and prohibitions only in the case of particular genetically modified organisms and only in special circumstances. In none of its provisions does the directive authorise a Member State to prohibit, in a general and unjustified manner, the marketing, within its territory, of an entire category (in this case, seed) of genetically modified organisms. The aforementioned provision is also at variance with Directive 2002/53/EC, in particular Article 16 thereof, inasmuch as it constitutes a marketing restriction in relation to seed derived from varieties listed in the common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species.
   The national provision stating that ‘genetically modified varieties may not be registered in the national catalogue’ is at variance with Directive 2002/53/EC. Article 4(4) of that directive does not authorise Member States to prohibit generally the registration of genetically modified varieties in the national catalogue, but rather imposes on them solely the obligation to ensure, when such varieties are being entered in the national catalogue, that each of those varieties had been approved in accordance with the Community legislation applicable to genetically modified organisms.

      (1)  OJ L 106, 17.4.2001, p. 1-39.

      (2)  OJ L 193, 20.7.2002, p. 1-11.


title: Case T-681/14: Action brought on 18 September 2014 — El-Qaddafi v Council

text:
               1.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 431/31

         Action brought on 18 September 2014 — El-Qaddafi v Council
   (Case T-681/14)
   (2014/C 431/54)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Aisha Muammer Mohamed El-Qaddafi (Muscat, Oman) (represented by: J. Jones, Barrister)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               adopt a measure of organisation of procedure under Article 64 of its Rules of Procedure, requiring the Council to disclose all the information supporting the applicant’s listing in the contested measures;

               —

               annul in whole or in part Council Decision 2011/137/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya, as amended by Council Decision 2014/380/CFSP of 23 June 2014, insofar as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               annul in whole or in part Council Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 of 2 March 2011, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 689/2014 of 23 June 2014 implementing Article 16(2) of regulation (EU) No 204/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya, insofar as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               order the Council to pay the applicant’s 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 General Court has competence to review the lawfulness of restrictive measures imposed against the applicant by the Council of the European Union which were adopted in order to give effect to the sanctions regime imposed by the United Nations Security Council in relation to Libya. The applicant submits that the EU measures implementing restrictive measures decided at international level do not enjoy immunity from jurisdiction on the grounds that they give effect to resolutions adopted by the United Nations Security Council under Chapter VII of the United Nations Chapter.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the General Court has competence to engage in a full and substantive review of the lawfulness of the contested EU measures giving effect to the United Nations Security Council resolutions imposing restrictive measures against the applicant. This includes whether the reasons relied on by the Council in its decision to confirm the applicant’s listing are well founded and sufficiently detailed and specific.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the contested EU measures violate the applicant’s rights of the defence and its right to effective judicial protection. The applicant argues that the Council failed to provide it with reasons or any specific evidence that would justify its continued listing.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested EU measures violate the principle of proportionality and the applicant’s fundamental rights, including its right to property and to respect for private and family life.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s listing is unfounded, inaccurate, unjustified and insufficiently detailed as the applicant does not pose any threat to international peace and security. The applicant alleges that the continued listing on the sole ground of a family connection with the deceased leader of the ousted Gaddafi regime is contrary to EU law. The applicant further alleges that it has not been involved in any events in Libya that constitute a threat to international peace and security.


title: Case C-225/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Criminal proceedings against Mossa Ouhrami (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Return of illegally staying third-country nationals — Directive 2008/115/EC — Article 11(2) — Decision to impose an entry ban taken before that directive entered into force and relating to a longer period than that provided for by the directive — Time from which the period of the entry ban starts to run)

text:
               18.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 309/12

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Criminal proceedings against Mossa Ouhrami
   (Case C-225/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Return of illegally staying third-country nationals - Directive 2008/115/EC - Article 11(2) - Decision to impose an entry ban taken before that directive entered into force and relating to a longer period than that provided for by the directive - Time from which the period of the entry ban starts to run))
   (2017/C 309/15)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Party in the main proceedings

   Mossa Ouhrami

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 11(2) 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 starting point of the duration of an entry ban, as referred to in that provision, which in principle may not exceed five years, must be calculated from the date on which the person concerned actually left the territory of the Member States.

      (1)  OJ C 232, 27.6.2016.


title: Case C-577/13: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division), Patents Court (United Kingdom) made on 14 November 2013 — Actavis Group PTC EHF, Actavis UK Ltd v Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG

text:
               1.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/2

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division), Patents Court (United Kingdom) made on 14 November 2013 — Actavis Group PTC EHF, Actavis UK Ltd v Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG
   (Case C-577/13)
   2014/C 31/03
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice (Chancery Division), Patents Court

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Actavis Group PTC EHF, Actavis UK Ltd

      Defendant: Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG

      Questions referred

               1.

                           (a)

                           If a patent does not, upon grant, contain a claim that explicitly identifies two active ingredients in combination, but the patent could be amended so as to include such a claim could this patent, whether or not such an amendment is made, be relied upon as a ‘basic patent in force’ for a product comprising those ingredients in combination pursuant to Article 3(a) of Regulation No 469/2009/EC (1) (‘the Regulation’)?

                           (b)

                           Can a patent that has been amended after the grant of the patent and either (i) before and/or (ii) after grant of the SPC be relied upon as the ‘basic patent in force’ for the purposes of fulfilling the condition set out in Article 3(a) of the Regulation?

                           (c)

                           Where an applicant applies for an SPC for a product comprised of active ingredients A and B in circumstances where,

                                       (i)

                                       after the date of application for the SPC but before the grant of the SPC, the basic patent in force, being a European Patent (UK) (the ‘Patent’) is amended so as to include a claim which explicitly identifies A and B;
                                       and

                                       (ii)

                                       the amendment is deemed, as a matter of national law, always to have had effect from the grant of the Patent;

                                 is the applicant for the SPC entitled to rely upon the Patent in its amended form for the purposes of fulfilling the Art 3(a) condition?

               2.

               For the purposes of determining whether the conditions in Article 3 are made out at the date of the application for an SPC for a product comprised of the combination of active ingredients A and B, where (i) the basic patent in force includes a claim to a product comprising active ingredient A and a further claim to a product comprising the combination of active ingredients A and B and (ii) there is already an SPC for a product comprising active ingredient A (‘Product X’) is it necessary to consider whether the combination of active ingredients A and B is a distinct and separate invention from that of A alone ?

               3.

               Where the basic patent in force ‘protects’ pursuant to Article 3(a):

                           (a)

                           A product comprising active ingredient A (‘Product X’); and

                           (b)

                           A product comprising a combination of active ingredient A and active ingredient B (‘Product Y’).
                           And where:

                           (c)

                           An authorisation to place Product X on the market as a medicinal product has been granted;

                           (d)

                           An SPC has been granted in respect of Product X; and

                           (e)

                           A separate authorisation to place Product Y on the market as a medicinal product has subsequently been granted.

                     Does the Regulation, in particular Articles 3(c), 3(d) and/or 13(1) of the Regulation preclude the proprietor of the patent being issued with an SPC in respect of Product Y? Alternatively, if an SPC can be granted in respect of Product Y, should its duration be assessed by reference to the grant of the authorisation for Product X or the authorisation for Product Y?

               4.

               If the answer to question 1(a) is in the negative and the answer to question l(b)(i) is positive and the answer to question l(b)(ii) is negative, then in circumstances where:

                           (i)

                           in accordance with Art 7(1) [of the] Regulation, an application for an SPC for a product is lodged within six months of the date on which a valid authorisation to place that product on the market as a medicinal product has been granted in accordance with Directive 2001/83/EC (2) or Directive 2001/82/EC (3);

                           (ii)

                           following the lodging of the application for the SPC, the competent industrial property office raises a potential objection to the grant of the SPC under Article 3(a) of the Regulation;

                           (iii)

                           following and in order to meet the aforesaid potential objection by the competent industrial property office, an application to amend the basic patent in force relied upon by the SPC applicant is made and granted;

                           (iv)

                           upon amendment of the basic patent in force, said amended patent complies with Article 3(a);

                     does the SPC Regulation prevent the competent industrial property office from applying national procedural provisions to enable (a) suspension of the application for the SPC in order to allow the SPC applicant to apply to amend the basic patent, and (b) recommencement of said application at a later date once the amendment has been granted, the said date of recommencement being

                           —

                           after six months from the date on which a valid authorisation to place that product on the market as a medicinal product was granted but

                           —

                           within six months of the date on which the application to amend the basic patent in force was granted?

      (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

      (2)  Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, OJ L 311, p. 67

      (3)  Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products, OJ L 311, p. 1


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


title: Case C-279/03: Action brought on 26 June 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against Implants (International) Ltd

text:
C 200/20              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                        23.8.2003
Action brought on 25 June 2003 by the Commission of the                  —     order the defendant to pay EUR 52,91 (fifty two Euros
European Communities against the United Kingdom of                             and ninety one Cents) per day by way of interest from
              Great Britain and Northern Ireland                               1 May 2003 until the date on which the debt is repaid in
                                                                               full;
                         (Case C-277/03)
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay the costs of the present
                         (2003/C 200/34)                                       action.
An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of              Pleas in law and main arguments
the European Communities on 25 June 2003 by the Commis-
sion of the European Communities, represented by Mr Xavier               On the basis of Article 3(1)(a) of the general conditions
Lewis and Mr Minas Konstantinidis, acting as agents, with an             (annex II of the contract) the defendant was obliged to
address for service in Luxembourg.                                       distribute the initial advance among the contractors and/or
                                                                         the RTD Performers within thirty days of receipt of the funds.
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                              The defendant did not do so and withdrew from the project.
                                                                         Under the contract all payments were to be treated as advances
1)    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and        until the last project deliverable was approved. The defendant
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with Direc-          is therefore obliged to reimburse the advance payment to the
      tive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the              Commission, subject to proof by the defendant of any costs
      Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of life vehicles (OJ           incurred by it.
      L 269, 21.10.2000, p. 34) the United Kingdom of Great
      Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obliga-      The defendant had until 31 August 2002 to submit a claim for
      tions under the Directive and in particular its                    costs, together with the necessary technical report in support
      Article 10 (1) and under the Treaty establishing the               of such a claim. The defendant did not do so and therefore has
      European Community.                                                forfeited its right to make a claim for any costs incurred in
                                                                         relation to the project and it thus has no right to claim a
2)    order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern             deduction from the advance payment in respect of such a
      Ireland to pay the costs.                                          claim.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The period within which the directive had to be transposed
expired on 21 April 2002.
                                                                         Action brought on 3 July 2003 by the Commission of the
                                                                           European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium
                                                                                (Case C-287/03)
Action brought on 26 June 2003 by the Commission of                                              (2003/C 200/36)
the European Communities against Implants (Interna-
                             tional) Ltd
                                                                         An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before
                         (Case C-279/03)                                 the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 3 July
                                                                         2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                         (2003/C 200/35)                                 represented by M. Patakia and N.B. Rasmussen, acting as
                                                                         Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
An action against Implants (International) Ltd was brought               The Commission of the European Communities claims that the
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on               Court should:
26 June 2003 by the Commission of the European Commu-
nities, represented by R. Lyal and C. Giolito, acting as agents,         1.    declare that, by applying in a discriminatory and dispro-
with an address for service in Luxembourg.                                     portionate manner the conditions of ‘similarity’ and ‘sole
                                                                               vendor’ as between products and services acquired by a
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                                    consumer, on the one hand, and products and services
                                                                               offered free of charge or at reduced prices in the context
—     order the defendant to pay the applicant the sum of                      of a customer loyalty programme, on the other hand, as a
      EUR 294 958,51 (two hundred and ninety four thousand,                    prior condition for the operation of such a programme as
      nine hundred and fifty eight Euros and fifty one Cents),                 a cross-border provision of services between undertakings,
      corresponding to EUR 284 000 as the amount due and                       the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
      EUR 10 958,51 as late payment interest;                                  under Article 49 of the EC Treaty;


title: Case T-395/02: Action brought on 27 December 2002 by Eva Vega Rodríguez against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
8.3.2003              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 55/35
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               The applicant also alleges failure to have regard for the welfare
                                                                          of officials and misuse of powers. The Commission has created
—     annul the decision of the Commission of the European                a situation allowing it to avoid all contact with Dr Cognigni
                                                                          who, for his part, can only pursue the applicant.
      Communities adopted on 7 September 2002 concerning
      complaint R/272/02 lodged by the applicant on 21 May
      2002;
—     order payment in their entirety of: the fees charged by Dr
      Cognigni for his work in the context of the Medical and
      Invalidity Committees concerning the applicant, together
      with reimbursement of the amounts withheld from the
      applicant’s pension; default interest on all those amounts;         Action brought on 27 December 2002 by Eva Vega
      and the costs of the proceedings, including lawyers’,               Rodríguez against the Commission of the European
      translation and process servers’ fees;                                                         Communities
—     compensate the applicant for the non-material damage                                         (Case T-395/02)
      suffered;
                                                                                (2003/C 55/88)
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
The applicant, a former official of the Commission who                    European Communities on 27 December 2002 by Eva Vega
worked in the Berlaymont building, was retired on the                     Rodríguez, residing in Brussels, represented by J.R. Iturriagago-
ground of invalidity in 1991. The applicant’s condition was               itia and K. Delvolvé, avocats
subsequently acknowledged to be an occupational disease. The
applicant appointed Dr Cognigni to sit on the Medical and
Invalidity Committees.                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          Primarily
The Commission failed to pay Dr Cognigni’s fees. The applicant
then brought Case T-75/98 seeking payment of the fees. That               —     annul the decision of the Commission of the European
case was removed from the register after an out-of-court                        Communities adopted on 27 September 2002 in respect
settlement fixing an amount to be paid to the applicant by                      of Claim No R/297/02 brought by the applicant on
way of additional payment in respect of the work done by the                    5 June 2002;
Invalidity Committee and of the costs incurred in bringing
proceedings before national courts. Contrary to expectation,              —     order the respondent to pay the costs;
Dr Cognigni insisted that the whole of his fees be reimbursed.
He therefore again brought proceedings against the applicant
before the Italian courts. Following a judgment delivered by an           In the alternative
Italian court, Dr Cognigni sought enforcement of the judgment
by way of attachment of the applicant’s pension. The applicant            —     annul the Commission’s decision of 25 June 2002;
is challenging the decision adopted by the Commission
authorising the attachment.                                               —     order the payment of compensation for the damages
                                                                                sustained in the sum of EUR 72 292,36 together with
                                                                                interest until the date of payment at the legal rate;
The applicant would point out that in accordance with the
rules relating to fees incurred in the context of medical and             —     order the respondent to pay the costs.
invalidity committees, the costs are entirely covered by the
Commission.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of his claims, the applicant alleges breach of the
principle of proportionality and the spurious and vexatious
nature of the attachment ordered by the Commission. Accord-               By the present action, the applicant objects to her exclusion,
ing to the applicant, the Commission ought to have taken                  at the pre-selection stage, from the tests for open competition
account of the fact that the judgment was still open to appeal.           COM/A/10/01.
 ---pagebreak--- C 55/36               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           8.3.2003
After finding an error in the wording of multiple-choice                 Pleas in law:                  —     Infringement               of
question number 35 of test (b), the jury decided to cancel that                                               Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation
question.                                                                                (EC) No 40/94 (1);
                                                                                —     Infringement of Article 7(3)
In support of her claims, the applicant alleges a manifest error                                              of Regulation (EC) No 40/
of assessment in the marking of questions number 21 in test                                                   94.
(a) and number 9 in test (c). She also alleges misuse of powers
in the present case.
                                                                         (1 ) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
                                                                              Community trade mark (OJ 1993 L 11, p. 1).
Action brought on 27 December 2002 by August Storck
KG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
              Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                           Action brought on 27 December 2002 by August Storck
                                                                         KG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                        (Case T-396/02)                                                Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                         (2003/C 55/89)                                                            (Case T-402/02)
                  (Language of the case: German)                                                    (2003/C 55/90)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
27 December 2002 by August Storck KG, Berlin, represented                An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
by H. Wrage-Molkenthin, T. Reher and A. Heise, Rechtsanwäl-              Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
te, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                           Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                         27 December 2002 by August Storck KG, Berlin, represented
                                                                         by H. Wrage-Molkenthin, T. Reher and A. Heise, Rechtsanwäl-
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              te, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
—     set aside the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of
      the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of             The applicant claims that the Court should:
      14 October 2002 in Case R 187/2001-4;
                                                                         —     set aside the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of
—     order the Office to pay the costs.                                       the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of
                                                                               18 October 2002 in Case R 256/2001-2;
                                                                         —     order the Office to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Trade mark for which          A three-dimensional mark in the
Community registration        form of a caramel sweet of a               Pleas in law and main arguments
sought:                       light brown colour — Application
                              No 784314
                                                                         Trade mark for which           The pictorial mark consisting of
Goods or services:            Goods of Class 30 (confectionery)          Community registration         the illustration of a wrapped sweet
                                                                         sought:                        — Application No 784454
Decision       challenged     Refusal of registration by the
before the Board of           examiner                                   Goods or services:             Goods of Class 30 (sweets)
Appeal:
                                                                         Decision        challenged     Refusal of registration by the
Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the complaint                 before the Board of            examiner
Appeal:                                                                  Appeal:


title: Case C-447/13 P: Appeal brought on 6 August 2013 by Riccardo Nencini against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 4 June 2013 in Case T-431/10, Nencini v European Parliament

text:
               19.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 304/7

         Appeal brought on 6 August 2013 by Riccardo Nencini against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 4 June 2013 in Case T-431/10, Nencini v European Parliament
   (Case C-447/13 P)
   2013/C 304/13
   Language of the procedure: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Riccardo Nencini (represented by: M. Chiti, avvocato)

      Other party to the procedure: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside — subject, where necessary, to verification of the invalidity/illegality of Article 85b of Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 (1) and Article 73a of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 (2) — the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 4 June 2013 in Joined Cases T-431/10 and T-560/10 Nencini v European Parliament and, by varying that judgment to the effect that the pleas in law raised before the General Court are upheld, declare that the measures contested at first instance are illegal;

               —

               In the alternative, in the unlikely event that the order directing Mr Nencini to repay the contested amount is confirmed, recalculate — by setting aside and varying the judgment under appeal — that amount in an equitable manner or refer the documents back to the General Secretariat of the European Parliament for an equitable recalculation of the contested figure;

               —

               Set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as it concerns costs and, consequently, vary it in such a way as to order the Parliament to pay the costs in Case T-431/10, ordering it also to pay the costs in Case T-560/10 or in some way arranging compensation for those costs;

               —

               In any event, order the European Parliament to pay the costs of the present appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Mr Nencini first alleges infringement of the rules governing time-bars and breach of the principles of legal certainty, effectiveness and reasonableness. The General Court rejected Mr Nencini’s claims, finding that time for the purposes of initiating recovery had started to run with notification of the recovery decision and the debit note, that is to say, 11 years after Mr Nencini had ceased to be a Member of the European Parliament.
   Secondly, Mr Nencini claims that the General Court erred in law in relation to the pleas alleging breach of the adversarial principle and the principle of effective judicial protection, as some of the factors on which the decision was based were different from those which had previously been the subject of dispute.
   Thirdly, Mr Nencini alleges misapplication of the Rules Governing the Payment of Expenses and Allowances to Members (‘the PEAM rules’), both as regards the contested amounts by way of reimbursement of travel expenses and as regards the contested amounts by way of secretarial allowance. Specifically, Mr Nencini argues that there was an error of interpretation as regards the concept of ‘domicile’, which cannot be equated with the concept of formal ‘residence’; he also argues that, in several respects, there had been no unlawful conduct and that it was contradictory to regard failure to indicate the names of all the beneficiaries of the secretarial allowance merely as a formal irregularity, but nonetheless to maintain that, in the light of the confusing rules which existed at the time, there was no way of making good that irregularity.
   Fourthly, Mr Nencini alleges breach of the principle of proportionality in the calculation of the amount to be recovered. He argues that demanding payment of the entire sum is perverse.
   Lastly, Mr Nencini complains that there has been error in calculating the costs that he owes in relation to the proceedings. The costs incurred for contesting the first decision — a decision which was subsequently withdrawn — arose because of improper conduct on the part of the other party, which had acknowledged this, however, by arranging — after notice of the first action had been served — for the decision to be replaced with a decision in Italian.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 357, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1).


               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/35

         Removal from the register of Case C-454/02 (1)

   (2004/C 228/75)
   By order of 8 June 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-454/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht): Karin Bautz v AOK Baden-Württemberg.

      (1)  OJ C 70 of 22.3.2003.


title: Case T-416/03: Action brought on 19 December 2003 by Angel Angelidis against the European Parliament

text:
6.3.2004               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 59/25
The applicant submits that the Council failed to determine the            —     annul the implied decision to reject the applicant’s
normal value in an appropriate and not unreasonable manner                      complaint submitted on 27 May 2003 in accordance
within the meaning of Article 2(5) of Regulation (EC) No 384/                   with Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations and seeking
96 (1), as modified, and in conformity with its duty of due care.               the annulment of the contested decision;
The Commission, who initiated an anti-dumping procedure
under Article 5 of the Regulation, should not have ignored the            —     order the defendant to pay to the applicant the sum of
anti-dumping rule according to which costs of by-products                       EUR 20 000 assessed on an equitable basis, subject to
should not be taken into account, but instead should be                         increase or decrease in the course of the proceedings, in
deducted, in the normal value determination, in order to meet                   respect of damages for non-material harm and harm to
the need for a normal value determined in an appropriate and                    his career, on the basis both of substantial irregularities
not unreasonable manner. According to the applicant, the                        and of significant delay in the writing of the 2001 report
Commission was aware of the difference between the costs of                     in a particularly distressing period for the applicant;
production related to the production of para-cresol, on the
one hand, and the costs of production related specifically to             —     order the defendant to pay the costs in accordance with
the by-products (sodium sulfite and mixed phenol), on the                       Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of
other hand. By extending the scope of the investigation to the                  First Instance.
two by-products and by taking into account the by-products
in the normal value determination, the Commission violated
the duty of due diligence.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
Furthermore, the applicant claims that the Council failed to
respect the duty of good administration and that it violated              The applicant claims, firstly, a breach of Articles 26 and 43 of
Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 by failing to calculate            the Staff Regulations, of the general provisions for giving effect
a normal value for the like product only.                                 to Article 43 as adopted by the Bureau of the European
                                                                          Parliament on 8 March 1999 and of the instructions relating
                                                                          to the procedure for the writing of staff reports.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22.12.1995 on protection
    against dumped imports from countries not members of the
    European Community (OJ L 56 of 6.3.1996, p. 1).                       He also pleads misuse of powers and infringement of general
                                                                          principles of law, such as respect for the rights of the defence,
                                                                          the principle of good administration, the principle of the
                                                                          protection of legitimate expectations and the duty to have
                                                                          regard for the welfare of officials, the principle of equal
                                                                          treatment and those general principles requiring the AIPN to
                                                                          take a decision only on the basis of legally permissible grounds,
                                                                          namely those which are pertinent and not tainted by a manifest
                                                                          error of assessment, fact or law.
Action brought on 19 December 2003 by Angel Angelidis
              against the European Parliament
                         (Case T-416/03)
                          (2004/C 59/41)
                                                                          Action brought on 22 December 2003 by Fédération
                                                                          Internationale des Maisons de l’Europe (FIME) against the
                   (Language of the case: French)                                  Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-417/03)
An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                                             (2004/C 59/42)
on 19 December 2003 by Angel Angelidis, resident in
Luxembourg, represented by Eric Boigelot, lawyer.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
—     annul the decision of the Secretary General of the                  ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      European Parliament taken on 4 March 2003 definitively              European Communities on 22 December 2003 by Fédération
      adopting the applicant’s staff report for 2001;                     Internationale des Maisons de l’Europe, established in Saar-
                                                                          brücken (Germany), represented by Pierre Soler-Couteaux,
—     annul that staff report for 2001;                                   lawyer.


title: Case C-631/11 P: Appeal brought on 8 December 2011 by Regione autonoma della Sardegna against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 20 September 2011 in Joined Cases T-394/08, T-408/08, T-453/08 and T-454/08 Regione autonoma della Sardegna and Others v Commission

text:
               21.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/8

         Appeal brought on 8 December 2011 by Regione autonoma della Sardegna against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 20 September 2011 in Joined Cases T-394/08, T-408/08, T-453/08 and T-454/08 Regione autonoma della Sardegna and Others v Commission
   (Case C-631/11 P)
   2012/C 118/13
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Regione autonoma della Sardegna (represented by: A. Fantozzi, avvocato)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Selene di Alessandra Cannas Sas and Others

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside and/or vary the judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2011 in Joined Cases T-394/08, T-408/08, T-453/08 and T-454/085;

               —

               Annul the Commission Decision of 3 July 2008 (State aid C1/2004 Italy — SG-Greffe (2008) D/204339) concerning the aid scheme ‘Regional Law No 9 of 1998 — Misapplication of aid N 272/98’.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant relies on two grounds in support of its appeal.
   The first ground of appeal concerns breach of Article 107(3) TFEU. In particular, the appellant alleges breach and misapplication of the principle of the necessity of aid and of the principle of the incentive effect, as a result of an excessively formalistic approach, which is contrary to the principle that the substance must take precedence over the form, and failure to take account of specific details relating to issues of transitional law which characterise the case in question.
   The second ground of appeal concerns breach of the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations and breach of Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999. (1) The bases of this ground of appeal arise from the specific intertemporal circumstances of the case, which were disregarded in the judgment under appeal. The General Court went beyond what is prescribed by the relevant case-law, requiring of the economic operator a degree of diligence that is not possible in practice, given that the requirement that an application for aid be made before work commences is a Community rule which was introduced at exactly the same time as the facts of the case and, therefore, the undertaking could not have been aware of it at the time at which it made its decision.

      (1)  OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1.


title: References for preliminary rulings from the Pretura Circondariale di Bassano del Grappa by orders of that court of 21 March 1995 in the cases of 1. Danila Bonifaci and Others, 2. Wanda Berto and Others v. Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale (INPS) (Cases C-94/95 and C-95/95)

text:
No C 159/ 16          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    24 . 6 . 95
    which judgments are based requires those reasons, in                  procedural conditions laid down by the national law of
    particular, to be legally admissible, that is to say,                 the Member States concerning claims for reparation of
    relevant, free from errors of law or fact and                         damage on account of failure to implement a
    consistent,                                                           Community directive must be the same as ( or in any
                                                                          event not more unfavourable than) those laid down by
— infringement of the Staff Regulations of officials of the               the national legislator in belatedly implementing the
    European Communities, in particular Article 73 thereof,               Directive itself?
    and of the Rules on the Insurance of Officials of the
    European Communities against the risk of Accident and            (') OJ No L 283 , 20 . 10 . 1980 , p . 23 .
    of Occupational Disease , in particular Article 3
    thereof,
— breach of the general legal principles applying under
    Community law, namely, in particular, the principles of          Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberver
    legal certainty, good faith, the protection of legitimate        waltungsgericht fiir das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen by
                                                                     order of that court of 17 March 1995 in the case of Paul
    expectations and the duty to have regard for the welfare
                                                                     Daut GmbH &c Co KG v. Oberkreisdirektor des Kreises
    and/or interests of officials, of the principle that acts
    should be done within a reasonable time, and also of the                                         Gxitersloh
    principle that all administrative acts must be based on                                     ( Case C-105/95 )
    reasons which are legally admissible, that is to say,                                         ( 95/C 159/31 )
    relevant and free from errors of law and/or fact .
                                                                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                     European Communities by an order of the Thirteenth
                                                                     Senate of the Oberverwaltungsgericht fiir das Land
                                                                     Nordrhein-Westfalen ( Higher Administrative Court, North
References for preliminary rulings from the Pretura                  Rhine Westphalia ) of 17 March 1995 , which was received at
Circondariale di Bassano del Grappa by orders of that court          the Court Registry on 31 March 1995 , for a preliminary
of 21 March 1995 in the cases of 1 . Danila Bonifaci and             ruling in the case of Paul Daut GmbH & Co KG v.
Others, 2 . Wanda Berto and Others v. Istituto Nazionale             Oberkreisdirektor des Kreises Giitersloh on the following
               délia Previdenza Sociale ( INPS )                     questions:
                ( Cases C-94/95 and C-95/95 )
                                                                     Is it compatible with Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty in
                         ( 95/C 159/30 )                             conjunction with Council Directive 64/433/EEC on health
                                                                     requirements and the marketing of fresh meat (*) ('the fresh
References have been made to the Court of Justice of the             meat Directive ') in the codified version annexed to Council
European Communities by orders of the Pretura                        Directive 91/497/EEC of 29 July 1991 ( 2 ) as amended by
Circondariale di Bassano del Grappa ( District Magistrate's          Directive 92/5/EEC of 10 February 1992 ( 3 ) and in
Court, Bassano del Grappa ) of 21 March 1995 , which were            conjunction with Directive 77/99/EEC on health problems
received at the Court Registry on 24 March 1 995 , for               affecting intra-Community trade in meat products ( 4 ) ('the
preliminary rulings in the cases of 1 . Danila Bonifaci and          meat products Directive') in the version annexed to
Others, 2 . Wanda Berto and Others v. Istituto Nazionale             Directive 92/5/EEC if the respondent — on the basis of
délia Previdenza Sociale ( National Social Welfare                   paragraph 17 ( 1 ) ( 2 ) of the Verordnung iiber die
Institution — INPS ) on the following questions :                    hygienischen           Anforderungen         und     amtlichen
                                                                     Untersuchungen beim Verkehr mit Fleisch ( Regulations on
1 . Must Article 4 ( 2 ) of Council Directive 80/987/EEC ( l )       hygiene requirements and official examinations relating to
     be interpreted as meaning that the Member States may            trade in meat, 'the FlHV') of 30 October 1986 , BGBl 1 1678 ,
     opt to limit the liability of the guarantee institutions to     as last amended by the EWR-Ausfiihrungsgesetz ( EEA
     pay remuneration to a particular period of time — in this       implementation law ) of 27 April 1993 , BGBl I 512, 552 —
     case, 12 months — even in cases where the period in time        objects to the import of frozen mechanically recovered meat
     in question was exceeded not because of inertia                 in the case of an EC-authorized German establishment
     amounting to fault on the part of the employee                  which is in a position to carry out heat treatment within the
     concerned and, in particular, where the employee claims         meaning of the meat products Directive and obtains frozen
     compensation for damage on account of the                       mechanically recovered meat from an EC-authorized
     non-implementation or the belated implementation of             Belgian establishment in accordance with the designation of
     the Directive itself ?                                          the Belgian EC veterinarian in order to subject it to heat
                                                                     treatment within the meaning of the meat products
2 . In the event that question 1 is answered # in the                Directive and further process it, and if not is agreement with
     affirmative, must Article 4 ( 2 ) of the Directive be           the competent German veterinary authority necessary and
     considered valid in the light of the principle of equality      between whom ?
     and non-discrimination ?
                                                                     (J)  OJ No  121 , 29 . 7. 1964 , p . 2012 .
3 . Must paragraph 43 of the Judgment of the Court of                (2 ) OJ No  L 268 , 24 . 9 . 1991 , p . 69 .
                                                                     (3 ) OJ No  L 57, 2 . 3 . 1992 , p . 1 .
     Justice of 19 November 1991 in Joined Cases C-6/90
                                                                     (4 ) OJ No  L 26 , 31 . 1 . 1977, p . 85 .
     and C-9/90 Francovich and Others v. Italian Republic
     be interpreted as meaning that the substantive and


title: Case F-57/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 7 October 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Disability allowance — Deduction of the amount of the debt owed to an institution — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any basis in law)

text:
               11.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/29

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 7 October 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case F-57/12) (1)

   (Civil service - Officials - Disability allowance - Deduction of the amount of the debt owed to an institution - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any basis in law)
   2014/C 9/48
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Gattinara, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s implied decisions to reduce the amount of the applicant’s disability allowance for the months June to September 2011, for payment of interest at the rate of 15 % and payment of the sum of EUR 500.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application is dismissed on the basis that it is in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any basis in law.

               2.

               Mr Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the interim proceedings in Cases F-57/12 R and T-464/12 P(R).

               3.

               Mr Marcuccio is ordered to pay to the General Court the sum of EUR 2 000.

      (1)  OJ C 227, 28.7.2012, p. 37.


title: Case C-646/11 P: Appeal brought on 16 December 2011 by 3F, formerly Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark (SID) against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 27 September 2011 in Case T-30/03 RENV: 3F formerly Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark (SID) v European Commission

text:
               3.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/6

         Appeal brought on 16 December 2011 by 3F, formerly Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark (SID) against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 27 September 2011 in Case T-30/03 RENV: 3F formerly Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark (SID) v European Commission
   (Case C-646/11 P)
   2012/C 65/11
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: 3F, formerly Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark (SID) (represented by: P. Torbøl, advokat, V. Edwards)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of Denmark

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the Judgment of the General Court in its entirety,

               —

               Give final judgment on the matter,

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant submits that the contested judgment should be set aside on the following grounds:

               —

               The General Court erred in law in its interpretation and application of the case-law related to the assessment of the length of a preliminary examination under Article 108(3) TFEU.

               —

               The General Court erred in law in its interpretation and application of the case-law on the meaning of ‘serious difficulties’ and the determination of whether such difficulties exist.

               —

               The General Court erred in law by failing to respond to the Appellant's plea relating to infringement of the principle of good administration; in the alternative the General Court erred in law by incorrectly interpreting and applying the case-law on the principle of good administration.


title: Case F-53/14: Action brought on 12th June 2014 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/58

         Action brought on 12th June 2014 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-53/14)
   2014/C 421/84
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: V. Simeons, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the decisions withdrawing both the dependent child allowance that was granted to the applicant in favour of her mother and the covering by the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme of the European institutions (JSIS), and the annulment of the decisions to recover the sums paid to the applicant.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the three PMO.1 decisions of 20 August 2013, which revoked the decisions initially granting her the allowance for the maintenance of the applicant’s mother in the period from 1 March 2010 until 28 February 2013 (decisions of 11 May 2010,5 May 2011 and 16 January 2012);

               —

               annul the decision of PMO.3 of 25 September 2013 revoking the JSIS coverage of her mother and informing her about the recovery of the reimbursement of the medical expenses;

               —

               annul the decision of PMO.l of 23 October 2013 on the recovery of the overpaid sums under Article 85 of the SR;

               —

               so far as it is necessary, annul the decision of 12 March 2014 rejecting the complaint;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.