title: Case C-127/99: Action brought on 14 April 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
C 204/22                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        17.7.1999
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                     ‘Must Article 79 of Regulation (EEC) No 259/68 (1), as
                                                                           subsequently amended, where it provides that: … the con-
                         of 21 April 1999                                  ditions of employment of local staff, in particular:
in Joined Cases C-28/98 and C-29/98 (references for a                      (a) the manner of their engagement and termination of their
preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance                         contract,
de Thionville): Marc Charreire (Case C-28/98), Jean Hirts-
mann (Case C-29/98) v Directeur des Services Fiscaux de                    (b) their leave, and
                            la Moselle (1)
                                                                           (c) their remuneration
   (References for a preliminary ruling — Inadmissibility)
                                                                           shall be determined by each institution in accordance with
                          (1999/C 204/42)                                  current rules and practice in the place where they are to
                                                                           perform their duties, be construed as meaning that the
                                                                           European institution is permitted to dispense with national
                    (Language of the case: French)                         legislation, with the consequence that rules of Community
                                                                           origin are alone applicable, or does it, in contrast, impose
                                                                           compliance with national legislation, particulary if that
(Provisional translation: the definitive translation will be published     national legislation is mandatory and binding in nature?’
                   in the European Court Reports)
In Joined Cases C-28/98 and C-29/98: two references to the                 (1) Council Regulation of 29.2.1968, OJ English Special Edition 1968
Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal de                  (I), p. 30.
Grande Instance de Thionville (France) for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings pending before that court between Marc
Charreire (Case C-28/98), Jean Hirtsmann (Case C-29/98)
and Directeur des Services Fiscaux de la Moselle on the
interpretation of Article 95 of the EC Treaty — the Court,
composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P.J.G. Kap-
teyn, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann, Presidents of
Chambers, G.F. Mancini, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gul-
mann. J.L. Murray, D.A.O. Edward, H. Ragnemalm, L. Sevón
and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur) Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 21 April                Action brought on 14 April 1999 by the Commission of
1999, the operative part of which is as follows:                             the European Communities against the Italian Republic
The references for a preliminary ruling made by the Tribunal de                                     (Case C-127/99)
Grande Instance de Thionville, by judgments of 21 March 1997, are
inadmissible.
                                                                                (1999/C 204/44)
(1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.
                                                                           An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
                                                                           Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 April
                                                                           1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                           represented by Paolo Stancanelli, of its Legal Service, acting as
                                                                           Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
                                                                           of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura Circon-                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
dariale di Torino by order of 30 March 1999 in the case
    of Roberto Vitari v European Training Foundation
                                                                           — declare that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                                obligations under Community law by failing to establish
                          (Case C-126/99)                                       one or more action programmes of the type and under the
                                                                                conditions provided for in Article 5 of Council Directive
                          (1999/C 204/43)                                       91/676/EEC (1) of 12 December 1991 concerning the
                                                                                protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates
                                                                                from agricultural sources; by failing to carry out the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          monitoring measures provided for in Article 6 of that
European Communities by order of 30 March 1999 from the                         directive; and by failing to draw up and submit a full report
Pretura Circondariale di Torino (District Magistrate’s Court,                   as required by Article 10 of that directive,
Turin), which was received at the Court Registry on 14 April
1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Roberto Vitari v
European Training Foundation on the following question:                    — order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 17.7.1999             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 204/23
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
                                                                       — annul Commission Decisions 99/186/EC (1) and
Breach of Article 10 of Directive 91/676                                   99/187/EC (2) of 3 February 1999 as regards the financial
                                                                           adjustments imposed on the Kingdom of Spain, and
The Italian Republic has not fulfilled the obligation specifically
provided for by Article 10 of Directive 91/676 regarding the           — order the defendant to pay the costs.
preparation and submission to the Commission of a report in
respect of the period between 20 December 1991 and 20
December 1995, that is to say the four years following
notification of the directive, containing the information out-         Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
lined in Annex V to the directive.
                                                                       The Kingdom of Spain contests:
Breach of Article 5 of Directive 91/676
                                                                       — the Commission decision of 3 February 1999 excluding
Article 5(1) requires Member States to establish action pro-               from Community financing certain expenditure incurred
grammes in respect of designated vulnerable zones within a                 by the Member States (199/186/EC), and
two-year period following the initial designation of such zones
or within one year of each additional designation following            — the Commission decision of 3 February 1999 on the
the four-yearly review of the situation provided for by                    clearance of the accounts presented by the Member States
Article 3(4).                                                              in respect of the expenditure for 1995 of the guarantee
                                                                           section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guaran-
The Italian authorities have not yet drawn up one or more                  tee Fund (1999/187/EC),
action programme which are complete, consistent, coherent
and directed towards the attainment of the specific objectives         as regards the financial adjustments imposed in the following
of the directive within a four-year period, in breach of the           sectors:
express provisions of Article 5.
Breach of Article 6 of Directive 91/676                                (a) Arable crops
The Commission considers that the Italian Republic has also            — PTE 1 471 398 749 corresponding to 5 % of the expendi-
breached the requirement laid down by Article 6 of the                     ture incurred by the Autonomous Community of Aragon
directive in not monitoring fully and correctly the nitrate                in relation to certain matters relating to on-the-spot checks
concentration in freshwaters for the purpose of identifying                in respect of applications for area-linked aid managed by
contaminated waters with a view to designating vulnerable                  the said Autonomous Community.
zones.
                                                                           The minimum percentage to be achieved for checks,
                                                                           namely checks corresponding to 5 % of the applications
(1) OJ 1991 L 375, 31.12.1991, p. 1.                                       submitted, must be achieved at Member State level, not at
                                                                           provincial level and not at Autonomous Community level,
                                                                           as provided in Article 6(3) of Commission Regulation
                                                                           (EEC) No 3887/92 (3). The Autonomous Community of
                                                                           Aragon carried out adequate checks in accordance with
                                                                           the Community legislation and both the percentage of
                                                                           controls undertaken and the areas checked exceed Com-
                                                                           munity requirements. In fact, a total of 3 024 files (7,4 %
                                                                           of all applications) were checked using a criterion similar
                                                                           to that of tele-detection (at least 80 % of the cultivated area
Action brought on 15 April 1999 by the Kingdom of Spain                    included in the control zone). In terms of area checked, the
against the Commission of the European Communities                         total covered was about 11 500 hectares (8,7 % of the
                                                                           total area for which applications were submitted).
                        (Case C-130/99)
                                                                           The cases of alleged laxity found during in situ inspections
                                                                           carried out by EAGGF inspectors must be assessed in their
                        (1999/C 204/45)                                    proper perspective.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-              — PTE 215 011 390: the financial adjustment imposed by
ties was brought before the Court of Justice on 15 April 1999              the Commission is based on the fact that Spain did not
by the Kingdom of Spain, represented by Mónica López-Monis               take the necessary steps, either in administrative checks or
Gallego, Abogado del Estado in the State Office for Proceedings            on-the-spot checks, to verify the plausibility of the yield
before the Court of Justice, with an address for service in                forecasts declared and the accuracy of the actual yields
Luxembourg at the Spanish Embassy, 4-6 Boulevard E. Servais.               obtained.


title: Case T-452/02 P: Appeal brought on 11 November 2009 by Eckehard Rosenbaum against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 10 September 2009 in Case F-9/08 Rosenbaum v Commission

text:
               16.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 11/35

         Appeal brought on 11 November 2009 by Eckehard Rosenbaum against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 10 September 2009 in Case F-9/08 Rosenbaum v Commission
   (Case T-452/02 P)
   2010/C 11/65
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Eckehard Rosenbaum (Bonn, Germany) (represented by H.-J. Rüber, lawyer)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities and Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               set aside the judgment delivered on 10 September 2009 by the Civil Service Tribunal in the case of Rosenbaum v Commission;

               —

               set aside the Commission’s grading decision of 13 February 2007;

               —

               require the Commission to grade the appellant in a manner which is non-discriminatory and consistent with his professional experience, and to take all further necessary measures resulting from the judgment;

               —

               order the Commission to pay all costs relating to the dispute.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appeal has been brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 10 September 2009 in Case F-9/08 Rosenbaum v Commission, by which the action brought by the present appellant was dismissed.
   In support of his appeal, the appellant first of all submits that the Civil Service Tribunal conducted an incomplete examination of the first plea in law. The Civil Service Tribunal, the appellant continues, also erred in law in rejecting the other three pleas as these, in contrast to the view taken by the Tribunal, were appropriate for the purpose of setting aside the contested measure. In conclusion, the appellant expresses the view that the lack of higher-quality selection procedures has a bearing on the issue of the legality of the contested decision and that the rejection of the evidence adduced in this connection is for that reason unlawful.


title: Joined Cases C-422/11 P and C-423/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 September 2012 — Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej and Republic of Poland v European Commission (Appeals — Actions for annulment — Rejection of the appeal as inadmissible — Representation before the Courts of the European Union — Lawyer — Independence)

text:
               17.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/7

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 September 2012 — Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej and Republic of Poland v European Commission
   (Joined Cases C-422/11 P and C-423/11 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Actions for annulment - Rejection of the appeal as inadmissible - Representation before the Courts of the European Union - Lawyer - Independence)
   2012/C 355/11
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Appellants: Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej (represented by: D. Dziedzic-Chojnacka and D. Pawłowska, radcowie prawni), Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Szpunar, A. Kraińska and D. Lutostańska, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: G. Braun and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeals brought against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 23 May 2011 in Case T-226/10 Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej v Commission by which the Court declared inadmissible the action of the Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 1234 of 3 March 2010, adopted pursuant to Article 7(4) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33), ordering the Polish regulatory authority in the field of electronic communications services and postal services to withdraw two notified draft measures concerning the national wholesale market for IP traffic exchange (IP transit) (Case PL/2009/1019) and the wholesale market for IP peering with the network of Telekomunikacja Polska S.A. (TP) (Case PL/2009/1020) — Incorrect interpretation of the third and fourth paragraphs of Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, in conjunction with the first paragraph of Article 53 of the Statute, and also with the sixth paragraph of Article 254 of the FEU Treaty and Article 113 of the Rules of Procedure — Infringement of Article 67(1) of the FEU Treaty, in conjunction with Article 113 of the Rules of Procedure — Infringement of Article 5(1) and (2) of the EU Treaty, in conjunction with Article 4(1) of the EU Treaty and Article 113 of the Rules of Procedure — Infringement of Article 5(4) of the EU Treaty, in conjunction with Article 113 of the Rules of Procedure — Failure to state reasons — Inadmissibility of an action in the event of representation by lawyers in an employment relationship with the party

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeals;

               2.

               Orders the Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej and the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 311, 22.10.2011.


title: Case T-183/05: Action brought on on 4 May 2005 by Julie Samnadda against Commission of the European Communities

text:
               9.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/33

         Action brought on on 4 May 2005 by Julie Samnadda against Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-183/05)
   (2005/C 171/54)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 4 May 2005 by Julie Samnadda, residing in Brussels, represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Xavier Martin, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision to appoint the applicant as an official of the European Communities in that it fixes her grade on recruitment pursuant to Article 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments put forward are the same as those in Cases T-130/05, T-160/05, T-162/05 and T-170/05 and similar to those in Cases T-58/05 and T-164/05.


title: Case F-105/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 November 2015 — FM and FO v CEPOL

text:
               21.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 429/31

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 November 2015 — FM and FO v CEPOL
   (Case F-105/15) (1)

   (2015/C 429/44)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 320, 28/9/2015, p. 53.


title: Case T-604/15: Action brought on 27 October 2015 — Ertico — Its Europe/Commission

text:
               14.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 414/38

         Action brought on 27 October 2015 — Ertico — Its Europe/Commission
   (Case T-604/15)
   (2015/C 414/49)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Road Transport Telematics Implementation Coordination Organisation — Intelligent Transport Systems & Services Europe (Ertico — Its Europe) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Wellinger and K. T’Syen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the validation panel of the European Commission, of 18 August 2015, finding that the applicant does not qualify as a micro, small and medium-sized enterprise within the meaning of Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (OJ 2003 L 124, p. 36); and

               —

               order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates Article 22(1), indent 3 of Regulation No 58/2003 (1) because the validation panel adopted the contested decision more than 2 months after the date on which proceedings were instituted with the validation panel.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging the contested decision breaches (i) Article 22(1) of Regulation No 58/2003; (ii) the applicant’s rights of defence; and (iii) the principle of sound administration because the validation panel failed to hear the arguments of the applicant before taking the contested decision.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision breaches the principles of (i) legal certainty, (ii) sound administration, (iii) the protection of the applicant’s legitimate expectations; and (iv) ‘res judicata’ because the validation panel, while admitting that the arguments raised by the applicant on 7 February 2014 are correct, nevertheless substituted an entirely new statement of reasons for its initial statement of reasons, without there being any new and material facts.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates the Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC (the ‘SME Recommendation’) in that its conclusion that the applicant does not qualify as an enterprise is based on criteria which are not foreseen in the SME Recommendation but, instead, in section 1.1.3.1(6)(c) of Commission decision 2012/838/EU (2).

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision conclusion that the applicant would not qualify as an SME sets aside and ignores the clear and unequivocal wording of the SME Recommendation and is based on an arbitrary and purely subjective interpretation of the SME Recommendation.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision erroneously concludes that the applicant would not qualify as an SME within the meaning of the SME Recommendation: the applicant is an ‘enterprise’ and the applicant is ‘autonomous’ within the meaning of the Annex to the SME Recommendation.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging that the contested decision breaches the most favourable treatment principle under Commission Decision 2012/838/EU, as well as the equivalent provision under the Horizon 2020 programme.

               8.

               Eighth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by a contradictory and inadequate statement of reasons, the validation panel having failed to comply with its duty to duly motivate its decision.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 of 19 December 2002 laying down the statute for executive agencies to be entrusted with certain tasks in the management of Community programmes
   (OJ 2003 L 11, p. 1)

      (2)  Commission Decision of 18 December 2012 on the adoption of the Rules to ensure consistent verification of the existence and legal status of participants, as well as their operational and financial capacities, in indirect actions supported through the form of a grant under the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities and under the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community for nuclear research and training activities (OJ 2012 L 359, p. 45).


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of  2 February 2006  in Case C-143/05: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2002/84/EC — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               22.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/1

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 2 February 2006
   in Case C-143/05: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2002/84/EC - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2006/C 96/01)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case C-143/05: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: K. Simonsson and W.Wils) v Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: M. Wimmer) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 29 March 2005 — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of J. Makarczyk, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen and J. Klučka (Rapporteur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 2 February 2006, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 November 2002 amending the Directives on maritime safety and the prevention of pollution from ships, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 143 of 11.06.2005.


title: Case C-536/14: Action brought on 25 November 2014  — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               2.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 34/14

         Action brought on 25 November 2014 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-536/14)
   (2015/C 034/16)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Hottiaux and L. Nicolae, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that:

                           —

                           by failing to carry out and notify the analyses of markets 7 and 14 in Recommendation 2003/311/EC (1) and markets 1 and 6 in Recommendation 2007/879/EC (2) within three years from the adoption of previous measures concerning the markets in question, and by failing to notify a reasoned proposed extension to the time-limit to the Commission,

                           —

                           and by failing to request BEREC’s assistance in completing the analyses of the markets in question,

                     the Grand Duchy has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16(6) and (7) of Directive 2002/21/EC (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC (4) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009;

               —

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In the first place, the Commission complains that the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has not carried out nor has it notified the analyses of markets 7 and 14 in Recommendation 2003/311/EC and markets 1 and 6 in Recommendation 2007/879/EC within three years from the adoption of previous measures concerning the markets in question.
   In the second place, the Commission complains that the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has not requested, within the time-limits set, BEREC’s assistance in completing the analyses of the specific markets and adopting the regulatory measures that are required.

      (1)  Commission Recommendation 2003/311/EC of 11 February 2003 on relevant product and service markets within the electronic communications sector susceptible to ex ante regulation in accordance with Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on a common regulatory framework for electronic communication networks and services (OJ 2003 L 114, p. 45).

      (2)  Commission Recommendation 2007/879/EC of 17 December 2007 on relevant product and service markets within the electronic communications sector susceptible to ex ante regulation in accordance with Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (OJ 2007 L 344, p. 65).

      (3)  OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33.

      (4)  OJ 2009 L 337, p. 37.


title: Case C-272/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel d'Angers (France) lodged on 26 June 2006 — EARL Mainelvo v Denkavit France SARL

text:
               2.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel d'Angers (France) lodged on 26 June 2006 — EARL Mainelvo v Denkavit France SARL
   (Case C-272/06)
   (2006/C 212/30)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Cour d'appel d'Angers
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: EARL Mainelvo

      Respondent: Denkavit France SARL
   Question referred
   Is the immediate assignment by the farmer, under an integration contract concluded with a French company, which is a subsidiary of an international group producing and supplying feedstuffs for calves, of 67.63 to 71.35 % of the slaughter premium established by Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 of 17 May 1999 (1) [on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 21)], within the limits fixed by an internal inter-trade agreement between the national trade organisations representing integration undertakings and veal farmers, compatible with the objectives of market regulation and of ensuring a fair standard of living for the agricultural community stated in that regulation and with the internal market measures, established for those purposes and set out in Commission Regulation (EC) No 2342/1999 of 28 October 1999 (2) [laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal as regards premium schemes (OJ 1999 L 281, p. 30)]?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 21).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2342/1999 of 28 October 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal as regards premium schemes (OJ 1999 L 281, p. 30).


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 September 2000 in Case C-408/99: Commission of the European Communities v Ireland (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directives 94/55/EC and 96/86/EC — Failure to transpose into national law within the period prescribed)

text:
C 335/14                   EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           25.11.2000
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     4.    Article 10 of Directive 69/335, as amended by Directive
                                                                                85/303, creates rights on which individuals may rely in
                                                                                proceedings before the national courts.
                             (Fifth Chamber)
                        of 26 September 2000
                                                                             (1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.
in Case C-134/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo, Portugal): IGI —
     Investimentos Imobiliários SA v Fazenda Pública (1)
(Directive 69/335/EEC — Indirect taxes on the raising of
capital — Charges for entries in a national register of legal
          persons — Duties paid by way of fees or dues)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                             (2000/C 335/26)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                    (Language of the case: Portugese)
                                                                                of 26 September 2000
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                      in the European Court Reports)                         in Case C-408/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Ireland (1)
In Case C-134/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Supremo                          (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Tribunal Administrativo (Supreme Administrative Court) for a                 Directives 94/55/EC and 96/86/EC — Failure to transpose
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                            into national law within the period prescribed)
court between IGI — Investimentos Imobiliários SA and
Fazenda Pública in the presence of: Ministério Público — on
the interpretation of Articles 4, 10 and 12(1) of Council                                                 (2000/C 335/27)
Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect
taxes on the raising of capital (OJ, English Special Edition 1969
(II), p. 412), as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of                                      (Language of the case: English)
10 June 1985 (OJ 1985 L 156, p. 23) — the Court (Fifth
Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward, President of the
Chamber, L. Sevón, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur) and                   In Case C-408/99: Commission of the European Communities
M. Wathelet, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General; R. Grass,                  (Agent: M. Wolfcarius) v Ireland (Agent: M.A. Buckley) —
Registrar, has given a judgment on 26 September 2000, in                     application for a declaration that by failing to adopt the laws,
which it has ruled:                                                          regulations or administrative provisions necessary to comply
                                                                             with Council Directive 94/55/EC of 21 November 1994 on
1.     Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning               the approximation of the laws of the Member States with
       indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Council       regard to the transport of dangerous goods by road (OJ
       Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985, must be interpreted             1994 L 319, p. 7) and Commission Directive 96/86/EC of
       as meaning that charges, such as those at issue in the main           13 December 1996 adapting to technical progress Directive
       proceedings, which are levied for entering an increase in the         94/55 (OJ 1996 L 335, p. 43), or in any event by failing to
       share capital of a capital company in a national register of legal    inform the Commission of those measures, Ireland has failed
       persons constitute a tax for the purposes of the directive.           to fulfil its obligations under those Directives — the Court
                                                                             (Fifth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward, President of the
2.     Charges payable for entering an increase in the share capital of      Chamber, L. Sevón, P.J.G. Kapteyn, H. Ragnemalm (Rappor-
       a capital company in a national register of legal persons are,        teur) and M. Wathelet, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate General;
       where they amount to a tax for the purposes of Directive              R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 26 September
       69/335, as amended by Directive 85/303, in principle                  2000, in which it:
       prohibited under Article 10(c) thereof.
                                                                             1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt within the period prescribed
3.     ‘Fees or dues’ within the meaning of Article 12(1)(e) of Directive          the laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary to
       69/335, as amended by Directive 85/303, do not cover                        comply with Council Directive 94/55/EC of 21 November
       charges levied for entering an increase in the share capital of a           1994 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States
       capital company in a national register of legal persons, such as            with regard to the transport of dangerous goods by road
       the charges at issue in the main proceedings, the amount of                 and Commission Directive 96/86/EC of 13 December 1996
       which increases in direct proportion to the share capital raised            adapting to technical progress Directive 94/55, Ireland has
       and in respect of which there is no upper limit.                            failed to fulfil its obligations under those Directives;
 ---pagebreak--- 25.11.2000              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 335/15
2.    Orders Ireland to pay the costs.                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fourth Chamber)
(1) OJ C 6 of 8.1.2000.
                                                                                of 3 October 2000
                                                                         in Case C-371/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                         the Tribunale Civile e Penale di Venezia): Cinzia Gozza
                                                                         and Others v Università degli Studi di Padova and
                                                                                Others (1)
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                         (Right of establishment — Freedom to provide services —
                                                                         Doctors — Medical specialties — Training periods —
                         (First Chamber)                                                   Remuneration — Direct effect)
                      of 28 September 2000                                                          (2000/C 335/29)
in Case C-193/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Sedgefield Magistrates’ Court): Criminal proceedings
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                against Graeme Edgar Hume (1)
(Social legislation relating to road transport — Weekly rest
                     period — Postponement)                              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                         (2000/C 335/28)
                                                                         In Case C-371/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                                                                         the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunale Civile
                   (Language of the case: English)                       e Penale di Venezia (Civil and Criminal District Court, Venice),
                                                                         Italy, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
                                                                         before that court between Cinzia Gozza and Others and
In Case C-193/99: reference to the Court Article 234 EC from             Università degli Studi di Padova and Others — on the
the Sedgefield Magistrates’ Court, United Kingdom, for a                 interpretation of Council Directive 82/76/EEC of 26 January
preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings pending before            1982 amending Directive 75/362/EEC concerning the mutual
that court against Graeme Edgar Hume on the interpretation               recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of
of Article 8(5) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 of                formal qualifications in medicine, including measures to
20 December 1985 on the harmonisation of certain social                  facilitate effective exercise of the right of establishment and
legislation relating to road transport (OJ 1985 L 370, p. 1) —           freedom to provide services, and Directive 75/363/EEC con-
the Court (First Chamber), composed of: L. Sevón, President of          cerning the coordination of provisions laid down by law,
the Chamber, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and M. Wathelet, Judges;               regulation or administrative action in respect of activities of
S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a             doctors (OJ 1982 L 43, p. 21) — the Court (Fourth Chamber),
judgment on 28 September 2000, in which it has ruled:                    composed of: D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), President of the
                                                                         Chamber, A. La Pergola and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; P. Léger,
                                                                         Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has
Article 8(5) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 of                   given a judgment on 3 October 2000, in which it has ruled:
20 December 1985 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation
relating to road transport must be interpreted as meaning that a
driver who elects to postpone his weekly rest period until the week      On a proper construction of Article 2(1)(c) of Council Directive
following that in which it becomes due must take two weekly rest         75/363/EEC of 16 June 1975 concerning the coordination of
periods, consecutively and without any break between them, in that       provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in
second week.                                                             respect of activities of doctors and point 1 of the annex to that
                                                                         directive, as amended by Council Directive 82/76/EEC of 26 January
                                                                         1982 amending Directive 75/362/EEC concerning the mutual
                                                                         recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal
(1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.                                               qualifications in medicine, including measures to facilitate effective
                                                                         exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services
                                                                         and Directive 75/363, and of Article 3(2) of Directive 75/363 and
                                                                         point 2 of the annex to that directive, as amended by Directive
                                                                         82/76:


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura Circondariale di Roma, Tivoli Division, by order of that court of 3 April 1996 in the criminal proceedings against Amerigo Alari (Case C-190/96)

text:
No C 210/ 10            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   20 . 7 . 96
nevertheless they may not create obstacles to the exercise of               evidence, that he had had advance knowledge of the
the fundamental freedoms derived from the Treaty.                           model answers to the accounting and possibly the
                                                                            auditing questions, or of both the model answers and the
Lastly, in the Commission's view the present case does not                  questions themselves; the principles that no one may be
concern access to posts within the public administration but                obliged to incriminate himself cannot be relied on to
rather compliance with the principles of freedom of                         justify a total failure to cooperate in establishing the
movement and equal treatment in relation to conditions of                   truth,
employment and , consequently, it does not fall within the
exception of Article 48 ( 4 ).                                          — its assessment of the standard of proof required in order
                                                                            to establish a disciplinary offence : the contested
(') Official Journal , English Special Edition 1968 II, p . 475 .
                                                                            judgment in effect denies the disciplinary authorities the
                                                                            possibility of establishing a fact on the basis of a
                                                                            consistent body of relevant evidence obtained after a
                                                                            rigorously conducted disciplinary inquiry .
                                                                        (') OJ No C 133 , 1 . 5 . 1996 , p . 22 .
Appeal brought on 3 June 1996 by the Commission of the
European Communities against the judgment delivered on
28 March 1996 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities in Case T-40/95
between Philippe Guebels and the Commission of the                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura
                     European Communities                               Circondariale di Roma, Tivoli Division, by order of that
                        ( Case C-188/96 P                               court of 20 March 1996 in the criminal proceedings against
                                                                                Rosalinda Marchionne
                           ( 96/C 210/22 )
                                                                                ( Case C-189/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 210/23 )
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 28 March 199 6
by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-40/95 between Philippe                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Guebels and the Commission of the European Communities                  European Communities by an order of the Pretura
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                 Circondariale di Roma ( Rome District Magistrates ' Court ),
Communities on 3 June 1996 by the Commission of the                     Tivoli Division, of 20 March 1996 , which was received at
European Communities, represented by A. M. Alves Vieira                 the Court Registry on 3 June 1996 , for a preliminary ruling
and D. Waelbroeck , with an address for service in                      in the criminal proceedings against Rosalinda Marchionne
Luxembourg at the office of C. Gomez de la Cruz, of its                 on questions which are the same as those in Joined Cases
Legal Service, Wagner Centre .                                          C-58/95 and others ( M.
                                                                        (') OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 , p . 6 .
The appellant claims that the Court should :
— set aside the judgment delivered on 28 March 1996 by
    the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance in Case
    T-40/95 ('), Philippe Guebels v. Commission of the
    European Communities, and
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura
                                                                        Circondariale di Roma, Tivoli Division, by order of that
— make an appropriate ruling as to costs .                              court of 3 April 1996 in the criminal proceedings against
                                                                                Amerigo Alari
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                  ( Case C-190/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 210/24 )
Breach of Community law in that the contested judgment
errs in :
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
— its interpretation of the scope of the obligation to state            European Communities by an order of the Pretura
    reasons ,
                                                                        Circondariale di Roma ( Rome District Magistrates ' Court ),
                                                                        Tivoli Division, of 3 April 1996 , which was received at the
                                                                        Court Registry on 3 June 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in
— its legal assessment of the factors regarded by the
                                                                        the criminal proceedings against Amerigo Alari on questions
    appointing authority as aggravating by considering that
                                                                        which are the same as those in Joined Cases C-58/95 and
    they did not justify the adoption of a disciplinary                 others ( M.
    measure more severe than that recommended by the
    Disciplinary Board : the Court of First Instance was
    wrong in not considering the applicant's attitude to be             (>) OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 , p . 6 .
    an aggravating factor when, instead of producing a
    plausible defence, he merely denied , against all the


13.10.2001            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 289/19
       Removal from the register of Case C-433/99 (1)               ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof, (Austria): Margrith
                                                                    Petersilge, née Lackner v Sozialversicherungsanstalt der ge-
                         (2001/C 289/37)                            werblichen Wirtschaft.
By order of 1 June 2001 the President of the Court of Justice       (1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-433/99: (reference for a preliminary
ruling from the Commissione Tributaria regionale di primo
grado di Trento): Panarotta 2002 Srl v Ufficio delle Imposte
Dirette di Trento.
(1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.                                                    Removal from the register of Case C-4/00 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 289/41)
                                                                    By order of 21 June 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                    of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
       Removal from the register of Case C-434/99 (1)               the register of Case C-4/00: Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities v French Republic.
                         (2001/C 289/38)
                                                                    (1) OJ C 122 of 29.4.2000.
By order of 1 June 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-434/99: (reference for a preliminary
ruling from the Commissione tributaria regionale di primo
grado di Trento): NTB SpA v Ufficio delle Imposte Dirette di
Trento.
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case C-82/00 (1)
(1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.
                                                                                (2001/C 289/42)
                                                                    By order of 30 May 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                    of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                    the register of Case C-82/00: Commission of the European
       Removal from the register of Case C-501/99 (1)               Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands.
                         (2001/C 289/39)
                                                                    (1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
By order of 11 June 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-501/99: Commission of the European
Communities v French Republic.
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case C-130/00 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 289/43)
                                                                    By order of 5 July 2001 the President of the Court of Justice of
                                                                    the European Communities has ordered the removal from the
       Removal from the register of Case   C-511/99 (1)
                                                                    register of Case C-130/00: Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
                         (2001/C 289/40)
By order of 25 June 2001 the President of the Court of Justice      (1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-511/99: (reference for a preliminary


title: Case T-327/07: Action brought on 29 August 2007 — Patrick Holding v OHIM — Cassera (PATRICK EXCLUSIVE)

text:
               20.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/39

         Action brought on 29 August 2007 — Patrick Holding v OHIM — Cassera (PATRICK EXCLUSIVE)
   (Case T-327/07)
   (2007/C 247/64)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Patrick Holding ApS (Fredensborg, Denmark) (represented by: J. Løje, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cassera SpA (Milan, Italy)
   Form of order sought

               —

               The decision taken by the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) on 28 June 2007 in Case No R 727/2006-2 be annulled and the defendant be ordered to register the contested trade mark;

               —

               the defendant pays the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘PATRICK EXCLUSIVE’ for goods in class 25 — application No 3 063 427

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Cassera SpA

      Mark or sign cited: Community, national and international figurative marks and word marks ‘G. PATRICK’ for goods in classes 24 and 25

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as there is no likelihood of confusion between the conflicting trade marks.


title: Case C-358/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative (Luxembourg) lodged on 24 June 2016 — UBS (Luxembourg) SA, Alain Hondequin, Holzem and Others

text:
               12.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 335/38

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative (Luxembourg) lodged on 24 June 2016 — UBS (Luxembourg) SA, Alain Hondequin, Holzem and Others
   (Case C-358/16)
   (2016/C 335/51)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour administrative

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: UBS (Luxembourg) SA, Alain Hondequin, Holzem and Others

      Questions referred

               ‘1.

               Against the background in particular of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter) enshrining the principle of good administration, does the exception of “cases covered by criminal law” — found at the end of Article 54(1) of Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 93/22/EEC, (1) and at the beginning of Article 54(3) — cover a situation concerning, according to national law, an administrative sanction, but considered from the point of view of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) to be part of criminal law, such as the sanction at issue in the main proceedings, imposed by the national regulator, the national supervisory authority, and consisting in ordering a member of the national bar association to cease holding a post as director or any other post subject to accreditation in an entity supervised by that regulator and ordering him to resign from all his posts at the earliest opportunity?

               2.

               Inasmuch as the aforementioned administrative sanction, regarded as such under national law, stems from administrative proceedings, to what extent is the obligation of professional secrecy, which a national supervisory authority may invoke under Article 54 of Directive 2004/39/EC, subject to the requirements for a fair trial including an effective remedy as laid down in Article 47 of the Charter, examined in relation to the parallel requirements of Articles 6 and 13 ECHR relating to a fair trial and an effective remedy, which together constitute the safeguards provided for by Article 48 of the Charter, in particular as regards full access for the person on whom the administrative sanction has been imposed to the administrative file of the author of the sanction, which is also the national supervisory authority, for the purpose of protecting the interests and civil rights of the person on whom the sanction has been imposed?’

      (1)  OJ L 145, p. 1.


title: Case T-559/14: Action brought on 28 July 2014 — Ackermann Saatzucht a.o. v Parliament and Council

text:
               3.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 388/18

         Action brought on 28 July 2014 — Ackermann Saatzucht a.o. v Parliament and Council
   (Case T-559/14)
   2014/C 388/22
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Ackermann Saatzucht GmbH & Co. KG (Irlbach, Germany); Böhm-Nordkartoffel Agrarproduktion GmbH & Co. OHG (Hohenmocker, Germany); Deutsche Saatveredelung AG (Lippstadt, Germany); Ernst Benary, Samenzucht GmbH, (Hann. Münden, Germany); Freiherr Von Moreau Saatzucht GmbH (Osterhofen, Germany); Hybro Saatzucht GmbH & Co. KG (Kleptow, Germany); Klemm + Sohn GmbH & Co. KG (Stuttgart, Germany); KWS Saat AG (Einbeck, Germany); Norddeutsche Pflanzenzucht Hans-Georg Lembke KG (Hohenlieth, Germany); Nordsaat Saatzuchts GmbH (Halberstadt, Germany); Peter Franck-Oberaspach (Schwäbisch Hall, Germany); P.H. Petersen Saatzucht Lundsgaard GmbH (Grundhof, Germany); Saatzucht Streng — Engelen GmbH & Co. KG (Uffenheim, Germany); Saka Pflanzenzucht GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany); Strube Research GmbH & Co. KG (Söllingen, Germany); Gartenbau und Spezialkulturen Westhoff GbR (Südlohn-Oeding, Germany); and W. von Borries-Eckendorf GmbH & Co. KG (Leopoldshöhe, Germany) (represented by: P. de Jong, P. Vlaemminck and B. Van Vooren, lawyers)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union and European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               declare the action in annulment admissible;

               —

               annul Regulation (EU) No 511/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on compliance measures for users from the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilisation in the Union (OJ L 150, p. 59); and

               —

               order the European Parliament and the Council to pay the 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 EU is a contracting party to the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, implemented in the EU by the Regulation on Community Plant Variety Rights (1). Article 15 (c) of that Regulation recognizes the so-called breeders’ exemption, namely that the scope of Plant Variety Rights does not extend to ‘acts done for the purpose of breeding, or discovering and developing new varieties.’ The contested measure is a severe restriction of the breeders’ exemption, thus violating a binding and directly effective international obligation of the EU. Furthermore, the breeders’ exemption is recognized in Article 27 of the Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA). Although the EU is not a party to that agreement, the contested measure essentially demands that the Member States violate their international obligations deriving from the UPCA.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that as a contracting party to the Convention on Biological Diversity, and under Article 3 (5) TEU, the European Union is bound to support the preservation of biodiversity of the Earth. The contested Regulation will have a significant chilling effect on all efforts pertaining to the protection of plant biodiversity, thus impinging upon this international obligation.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the contested measure is solely based on Article 192 (1) TFEU. It is consistent case-law that the legal basis of a measure must be based on objective factors amenable to judicial review. Insofar as the measure seeks to organize compliance measures for users on the EU internal market, the Regulation should have been based on Article 114 TFEU. The choice of legal basis has ramifications for the content of the act, since the objectives for which the legal bases can be used are entirely different, thus substantially affecting the legislative process.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Regulation manifestly violates the principle of proportionality laid down in Article 5 (4) TEU insofar as: first, the impact assessment was devoid of link between quantitative data and the conclusions which were purely based on ‘qualitative’ arguments; second, it manifestly failed to take account of the plant breeding sector as being severely and distinctly impacted due to the fact that genetic resources are the very essence of the sector, and not merely an ancillary part of its activities; third, the Regulation imposes manifestly disproportionate restrictions of Article 16 of the EU Charter; fourth, it imposes a de facto eternal obligation on the plant breeding sector to record and keep information on their activities; finally, less onerous measures are available, as is illustrated by the ‘International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture’.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation creates a manifest situation of legal uncertainty for plant breeders insofar as: first, its scope of application depends on whether or not States choose to exercise sovereignty over genetic resources; second, it relies on open-ended definitions which do not permit establishing whether a genetic resources is considered to have been ‘utilized’; third, due to the fact that its open-ended interpretation leads to a possible de facto retroactive application; finally, due to the fact that the development of best practices merely ‘may’ reduce the risk of non-compliance for users subject to the contested measure.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights (OJ L 227, p. 1).


title: Case C-393/00: Action brought on 25 October 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
C 355/16                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       9.12.2000
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            The Commission claims that the Court should:
—     Infringement of an essential procedural requirement: the
      legal basis for the decisions at issue is inappropriate. Since       1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
      Article 255 EC enshrined for the first time in primary                     and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      legislation rights of access to documents of the Parlia-                   Council Directive 97/79/EC (1) of 18 December 1997
      ment, the Council and the Commission, the Council no                       amending       Directives    71/118/EEC,        72/462/EEC,
      longer has power to regulate such matters under the head                   85/73/EEC, 91/67/EEC, 91/492/EEC, 91/493/EEC,
      of its powers of internal organisation. Article 28(1) and                  92/45/EEC and 92/118/EEC as regards the organisation
      Article 41(1) of the Treaty on European Union explicitly                   of veterinary checks on products entering the Community
      provide that rights of access extend also to documents                     from third countries and Council Directive 98/46/EC (2)
      concerning the common foreign and security policy and                      of 24 June 1998 amending Annexes A, D (Chapter I) and
      cooperation in the fields of justice and home affairs.                     F to Directive 64/432/EEC on health problems affecting
                                                                                intra-Community trade in bovine animals and swine, the
      The obligation to lay down general principles and limits                   Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      upon the rights of access to documents in accordance                       the Treaty and those directives;
      with the codecision procedure (Article 255(2) EC) is,
      admittedly, one that is to be complied with within a
      period of two years. However, that obligation came into
      effect as soon as the Treaty of Amsterdam came into                  2.    order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
      force, which necessarily excludes the adoption of any
      unilateral measures laying down such general principles
      and limits.
—     Breach of the obligation to cooperate in good faith
      (Article 10 EC): despite the fact that the Commission                Pleas in law and main arguments
      adopted a proposal for a regulation, in accordance with
      Article 255(2) EC, and that the Parliament expected to
      collaborate closely with the Council and the Commission
      under the codecision procedure, the Council adopted                  In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 of the
      the measures at issue without the knowledge of the                   Treaty establishing the European Community, directives are
      Parliament.                                                          binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member
                                                                           State to which they are addressed.
—     Breach of the principle of institutional equilibrium: by
      adopting its decision unilaterally and without having
      regard to the procedures laid down in the Treaty,
      the Council also breached the principle of institutional             Under the first paragraph of Article 10 of the Treaty, Member
      equilibrium.                                                         States are to take all appropriate measures, whether general or
                                                                           particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out
                                                                           of the Treaty or resulting from action taken by the institutions
(1) OJ L 212 of 23.8.2000, p. 9.                                           of the Community.
(2) OJ C 239 of 23.8.2000, p. 1.
                                                                           It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt
                                                                           measures to comply with the abovementioned directives.
Action brought on 25 October 2000 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Hellenic Repub-                    The Commission records that until now the Hellenic Republic
                                 lic                                       has not adopted the appropriate measures to incorporate those
                                                                           directive fully into Greek law.
                          (Case C-393/00)
                         (2000/C 355/32)
                                                                           (1) OJ L 24, 30.1.1998, p. 31.
                                                                           (2) OJ L 198, 15.7.1998, p. 22.
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 25 Octo-
ber 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, of its Legal Service,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
Kirchberg.


title: Case T-545/12: Action brought on 17 December 2012 — Mory and Others v Commission

text:
               9.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/23

         Action brought on 17 December 2012 — Mory and Others v Commission
   (Case T-545/12)
   2013/C 71/36
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Mory SA (Pantin, France); Mory Team (Pantin) and Compagnie française superga d’investissement dans le service (CFSIS) (Miraumont, France) (represented by: B. Vatier and F. Loubières, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Commission Decision;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on five pleas in law in support of their action against Commission Decision C(2012) 2401 final of 4 April 2012, by which the Commission states that the obligation imposed on the Sernam companies to repay State aid by Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2012) 1616 final of 9 March 2012 does not extend to the potential purchasers of the assets of the Sernam Group. (1)

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission lacked the powers to adopt the contested decision and thus a misuse of powers, since the Commission is not competent to adopt a decision finding that the procedure adopted to execute the decision of 9 March 2012 does not constitute a circumvention of that procedure without a fresh in-depth investigation.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to apply the formal investigation procedure when verifying State aid in the event of serious concerns.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging inconsistent subject-matter and reasons inasmuch as, firstly, the subject-matter of the decision referred to by the Commission and the actual content thereof do not equate to each other and, secondly, the decision applies contradictory criteria to assess the absence of economic continuity between the aided activities and the purchaser of those activities.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment as regards (i) the object of the sale, (ii) the transfer price, (iii) the moment when the transfer was effected, (iv) the degree of independence of the new owners and shareholders and (v) the economic logic of the transaction.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging a lack of legal basis, inasmuch as the decision was adopted without it being ascertained that the transfer of the assets was made at their market value and without a study of the consequences of the fact that the purchaser belongs to the same group as that which distributed the unlawful aid.

      (1)  State aid No SA.34547 (2012/N) — France, in the notice to the Official Journal of the European Union
      OJ 2012 C 305, p. 10.


title: Case T-149/00: Action brought on 2 June 2000 by Centro Euromediterraneo per lo Sviluppo Sostenibile (Innova) against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
12.8.2000             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 233/33
Action brought on 2 June 2000 by Centro Euromediterra-                  Pleas in law and principal arguments
neo per lo Sviluppo Sostenibile (Innova) against the
        Commission of the European Communities                          By the contested decision, the Commission terminated the
                                                                        subsidy contract concluded with the applicant concerning
                                                                        a project within the framework of the Euromed Heritage
                        (Case T-149/00)                                 programme for the promotion of cultural tourism. The
                                                                        Commission had found that there had been chronic failure to
                       (2000/C 233/61)                                  comply with the contractual obligations and that the applicant
                                                                        had been unable promptly to take the necessary rectification
                                                                        measures. Although the contract in issue contains a clause
                                                                        conferring jurisdiction on the Belgian courts, the applicant has
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        thought it preferable to bring the present action before the
                                                                        Court of First Instance, on the ground that the Commission
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               had failed to provide any precision indication as to the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              competent court before which the decision in issue could be
European Communities on 2 June 2000 by Centro Euromedi-                 contested.
terraneo per lo Sviluppo Sostenibile (Innova), a non-profit-
making association established at Calatafimi Segesta (Italy),           In support of its claims, the applicant pleads:
represented by Denis Fosselard, of the Brussels Bar.                    —     misuse of powers, in that the contested decision was
                                                                              adopted by a head of unit without any express delegation
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   of powers by the college of Commissioners;
                                                                        —     non-observance of fundamental principles and failure to
—    primarily, annul the Commission’s decision to terminate                  respect the rights of the defence, in that the Commission
     the subsidy contract relating to the DIONYSOS project,                   unlawfully refrained from hearing the applicant’s views
     dated 23 March 2000;                                                     before adopting the contested decision;
—    alternatively, annul the said decision of the Commission           —     failure to observe the principle of proportionality, in that
     in so far as it requires the applicant to repay all of                   the termination of the contract was a disproportionate
     the sums already paid over, including those already                      measure since most of the reasons invoked were due to
     legitimately used by the applicant in order to implement                 external causes beyond the control of the applicant;
     the project;                                                       —     absence of a proper statement of reasons, in that the
                                                                              contested decision partly contradicted a previous audit
—    order the defendant to pay all the costs.                                report.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 October 2004 in Case C-185/02 Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Waste management — Disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls — Directive 96/59/EC)

text:
               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/3

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Sixth Chamber)
   of 28 October 2004
   in Case C-185/02 Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Waste management - Disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls - Directive 96/59/EC)
   (2005/C 6/04)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   In Case C-185/02 Commission of the European Communities (Agent: A. Caeiros) v Portuguese Republic (Agents: L. Fernandes, M. Telles Romão and M.J. Lois) – action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 17 May 2002 – the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: A. Borg Barthert, President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr and J. Malenovský (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 28 October 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to communicate the plans and outlines referred to in Article 11 of Council Directive 96/59/EC of 16 September 1996 on the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (PCB and PCT) to the Commission of the European Communities within the prescribed period, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that provision;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities and the Portuguese Republic to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 180 of 27.7.2002


title: Case C-327/04: Action brought on 27 July 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Finland

text:
               25.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/7

         Action brought on 27 July 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Finland
   (Case C-327/04)
   (2004/C 239/12)
   An action against the Republic of Finland was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 July 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by M. Huttunen and D. Martin, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               Declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply, with respect to the province of Åland (Ahvenanmaan maakunta), with Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (1), or at least by not informing the Commission thereof, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Order Finland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The prescribed period for implementing the directive expired on 19 July 2003.

      (1)  OJ L 180 of 19.7.2000, p. 22.


title: Case T-510/15: Action brought on 7 September 2015 — Mengozzi v OHIM — Consorzio per la Tutela dell’Olio Extravergine di Oliva Toscano (TOSCORO)

text:
               26.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 354/46

         Action brought on 7 September 2015 — Mengozzi v OHIM — Consorzio per la Tutela dell’Olio Extravergine di Oliva Toscano (TOSCORO)
   (Case T-510/15)
   (2015/C 354/56)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Roberto Mengozzi (Monaco, Monaco) (represented by: T. Schuffenecker, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Consorzio per la Tutela dell’Olio Extravergine di Oliva Toscano IGP (Florence, Italy)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘TOSCORO’/Community trade mark No 2 752 509

      Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 June 2015 in Case R 322/2014-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               partly uphold the contested decision and annul that part of the decision which invalidated the CTM registration for the goods ‘Edible oils fats; edible vegetable oils, notably olive oils’ as well as ‘green and black olive creams’;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred by the Applicant before the Board of Appeal;

               —

               order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal, should it become an intervening party in this case.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(k) of Regulation No 207/2009 and of Article 6(1) of Regulation EU No. 1151/2012;

               —

               Infringement of Article 13(1)(b) of Regulation No. 1151/2012;

               —

               Infringement of Article 15 of TRIPS Agreement.


title: Action brought on 6 February 1995 by Spyridoulia Alexopoulou against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-17/95)

text:
25 . 3 . 95           EN                  Official Journal -of the European Communities                              No C 74/15
his application for the three posts in question was adopted in        Pleas in law and main arguments
breach of the order of priority laid down in Article 29 of the
Regulations and in point 6 of the vacancy notice, which               The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
specifically stated that the appointing authority would               Case T-20/94 .
consider whether the posts could be filled by transfer
according to priority.
The applicant also points out that the appointing authority
breached the vacancy notice by selecting candidates by
reference to criteria other than those appearing in the said          Action brought on 6 February 1995 by Gerd Kühle against
notice . He points out that the appointing authority                  Council of the European Union and Commission of the
expressly acknowledged that it had made its choice from                                 European Communities
among agents with occupational experience as messengers                                     ( Case T-16/95 )
who already occupied such posts .
                                                                                ( 95/C 74/29
Furthermore, the applicant considers that the contested
decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment and was                      (Language of the case: German)
adopted in breach of the gurantees given under Article 45 of
the Regulations.                                                      An action against the Council of the European Union and
                                                                      Commission of the European Communities was brought
Finally, the applicant alleges that the defendant failed, even        before the Court of First Instance of the European
when giving a reply expressly rejecting his complaint, to             Communities on 6 February 1995 by Gerd Kühle, Berge
provide the information which would enable him to                     ( Federal Republic of Germany), represented by Bernd
ascertain whether the contested decision was valid .                  Meisterernst, Mechtild Düsing, Dietrich Manstetten, Frank
                                                                      Schulze and Winfried Haneklaus, Rechtsanwälte, Munster,
                                                                      with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
                                                                      of Dupong & Associés, 14a Rue des Bains .
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                      1 . order the defendants jointly to pay to the applicant
Action brought on 27 January 1995 by Josef Blum against                    SLOM I compensation for the period from 7 May 1986
Council of the European Union and Commission of the                       to 29 March 1989 in the amount of DM 8 952,80,
                    European Communities                                  together with interest thereon at 8 % from 1 9 May
                                                                           1992, and jointly to pay the costs of the proceedings;
                         ( Case T-14/95 )
                            95/C 74/28                                2 . join the present action to that already pending in Case
                                                                          T-77/93 Hülseberg and Others v. Council and
                                                                           Commission and also stay the proceedings .
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments
An action against the Council of the European Union and
Commission of the European Communities was brought                    The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
before the Court of First Instance of the European                    Case T-20/94 .
Communities on 27 January 1995 by Josef Blum, Hallschlag
(Federal Republic of Germany), represented by Bernd
Meisterernst, Mechtild Düsing, Dietrich Manstetten, Frank
Schulze and Winfried Haneklaus, Rechtsanwälte, Munster,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
of Dupong & Associés, 14a Rue des Bains.                              Action brought on 6 February 1995 by Spyridoulia
                                                                      Alexopoulou against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                                (Case T-17/95 )
 1 . order the defendants jointly to pay to the applicant                                      ( 95/C 74/30 )
     SLOM III compensation for the period from 19 October
     1985 to 29 July 1993 in the amount of DM 29 355,23 ,                            (Language of the case: French)
     together with interest thereon at 8% from 19 May
     1992, and jointly to pay the costs of the proceedings;           An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
2 . join the present action to that already pending in Case           Instance of the European Communities on 6 February 1995
     T-77/93 Hülseberg and Others v. Council and                      by Spyridoulia Alexopoulou, residing in Brussels (Belgium),
     Commission and also stay the proceedings .                       represented by Constantin Nikis, of the Brussels Bar, with
 ---pagebreak--- No C 74/16             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  25 . 3 . 95
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of              Dietrich Manstetten, Frank Schulze and Winfried
Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim.                             Haneklaus, Rechtsanwälte, Munster, with an address for
                                                                     service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Dupong &
                                                                     Associés, 14a Rue des Bains .
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— declare the action admissible and well founded,                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the decision of the appointing authority of 5 April          1 . order the defendants jointly to pay to the applicant
    1994 appointing the applicant to grade A7, step 5, and               SLOM I compensation for the period from 16 October
    the implicit refusal to appoint her to grade A6,                      1985 to 29 March 1989 in the amount of DM 53 550,
                                                                         together with interest thereon at 8% from 19 May
— annul the implied decision rejecting the complaint                      1992, and jointly to pay the costs of the proceedings;
    submitted by the applicant on 4 July 1994, which was
    received in the Secretariat-General of the Commission            2 . joint the present action to that already pending in Case
    on 4 July 1994,                                                      T-77/93 Hülseberg and Others v. Council and
                                                                         Commission and also stay the proceedings.
— order the Commission to pay all the costs.
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                     The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
The applicant, an official in grade A7, step 5 , contests the        Case T-20/94 .
decision of the appointing authority refusing to appoint her
to grade A6.
She pleads, first, an infringement of Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff
Regulations, and also contends that there has been a
manifest error of assessment in the present case, in that her
appointment takes into account neither her considerable
professional experience in the field in which she has been           Action brought on 9 February 1995 by Therese Schweiger
established nor her significant intellectual and human               against Council of the European Union and Commission of
qualities.                                                                            the European Communities
                                                                                Case T-22/95 )
The applicant further asserts that Article 5 ( 3)of the Staff                                ( 95/C 74/32 )
Regulations and the principle of equality of treatment of
officials have been disregarded, inasmuch as she was
appointed to grade A7 whilst , other officials possessing                          (Language of the case: German)
qualifications and professional experience inferior to, or at
best equivalent to, her own were appointed to grade A6 in
the context of a recruitment competition based on tests or           An action against the Council of the European Union and
on qualifications and tests.                                         Commission of the European Communities was brought
                                                                     before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                     Communities on 9 February 1995 by Therese Schweiger,
                                                                     Ampfing (Federal Republic of Germany), represented by
                                                                     Bernd Meisterernst, Mechtild Düsing, Dietrich Manstetten,
                                                                     Frank Schulze and Winfried Haneklaus, Rechtsanwälte,
                                                                     Munster, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                     Chambers of Dupong & Associés, 14a Rue des Bains .
Action brought on 8 February 1995 by Burghardt Wetterau
against Council of the European Union and Commission of
                 the European Communities                           The applicant claims that the Court should :
                        (Case T-20/95 )
                          ( 95/C 74/31 )                             1 . order the defendants jointly to pay the applicant
                                                                         SLOM I compensation for the period from 2 April 1984
                                                                         to 29 March 1989 in the amount of DM 193 229 ,
              (Language of the case: German)                             together with interest thereon at 8 % from 19 May
                                                                         1992, and jointly to pay the costs of the proceedings as
                                                                         well as those of the assessor in the amount of DM
An action against the Council of the European Union and
Commission of the European Communities was brought                       3 663,43 ;
before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 8 February 1995 by Burghardt Wetterau,               2 . join the present action to that already pending in Case
Sontra-Lindenau (Federal Republic of Germany),                           T-77/93 Hülseberg and Others v. Council and
represented by Bernd Meisterernst, Mechtild Düsing,                      Commission and also stay the proceedings .