title: Case T-243/07: Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2012 — Poland v Commission (Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Measures to be adopted as a result of the accession of new Member States — 2003 Act of Accession — Determination of surplus stocks of agricultural products other than sugar, and the financial consequences of their elimination — Objective pursued by a provision of primary law — Decision 2007/361/EC)

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/11

         Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2012 — Poland v Commission
   (Case T-243/07) (1)

   (Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Measures to be adopted as a result of the accession of new Member States - 2003 Act of Accession - Determination of surplus stocks of agricultural products other than sugar, and the financial consequences of their elimination - Objective pursued by a provision of primary law - Decision 2007/361/EC)
   2012/C 138/17
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented: initially by E. Ośniecka-Tamecka, subsequently by T. Nowakowski, then by M. Dowgielewicz, and lastly by M. Szpunar, B. Majczyna and D. Krawczyk, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Tserepa-Lacombe and A. Szmytkowska, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas and R. Krasuckaitė, acting as Agents); and Slovak Republic (represented: initially by J. Čorba, and subsequently by B. Ricziová and M. Kianička, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2007/361/EC of 4 May 2007 on the determination of surplus stocks of agricultural products other than sugar and the financial consequences of their elimination in relation to the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (OJ 2007 L 138, p. 14), in so far as it relates to the Republic of Poland

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision 2007/361/EC of 4 May 2007 on the determination of surplus stocks of agricultural products other than sugar and the financial consequences of their elimination in relation to the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia, in so far as it relates to the Republic of Poland;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Republic of Poland;

               3.

               Orders the Slovak Republic and the Republic of Lithuania to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.


title: Case T-153/11: Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2014 — Cantina Broglie 1 v OHIM — Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Verona (ZENATO RIPASSA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark ZENATO RIPASSA — Earlier national word mark RIPASSO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               19.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/28

      Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2014 — Cantina Broglie 1 v OHIM — Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Verona (ZENATO RIPASSA)
      (Case T-153/11) (1)

      (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark ZENATO RIPASSA - Earlier national word mark RIPASSO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
      (2015/C 016/45)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Cantina Broglie 1 Srl (Peschiera del Garda, Italy) (represented by: A. Rizzoli, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Verona (Verona, Italy)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 December 2010 (Case R 183/2010-2) concerning opposition proceedings between the Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Verona and Zenato Azienda Vitivinicola Srl.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Cantina Broglie 1 Srl to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 139, 7.5.2011.


title: Case T-228/15: Action brought on 8 May 2015 — Grupo de originacion y análisis v OHIM — Bankinter (BK PARTNERS)

text:
               29.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/39

         Action brought on 8 May 2015 — Grupo de originacion y análisis v OHIM — Bankinter (BK PARTNERS)
   (Case T-228/15)
   (2015/C 213/64)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Grupo de originacion y analisis, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Burgueño Minguela and H. Pequerul Palenciano, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bankinter, SA (Madrid, Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘BK PARTNERS’ — Application for registration No 10 550 051

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 March 2015 in Case R 1329/2014-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM and the other party to the proceedings before OHIM to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-243/15: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky — Slovakia) — Lesoochranárske zoskupenie VLK v Obvodný úrad Trenčín (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats — Article 6(3) — Aarhus Convention — Public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters — Articles 6 and 9 — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47 — Right to effective judicial protection — Project to construct an enclosure — Protected site ‘Strážovské vrchy’ — Administrative authorisation procedure — Environmental organisation — Request for the status of party to the procedure — Rejection — Legal action)

text:
               9.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/16

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky — Slovakia) — Lesoochranárske zoskupenie VLK v Obvodný úrad Trenčín
   (Case C-243/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats - Article 6(3) - Aarhus Convention - Public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters - Articles 6 and 9 - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47 - Right to effective judicial protection - Project to construct an enclosure - Protected site ‘Strážovské vrchy’ - Administrative authorisation procedure - Environmental organisation - Request for the status of party to the procedure - Rejection - Legal action))
   (2017/C 006/20)
   Language of the case: Slovak

      Referring court

   Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Lesoochranárske zoskupenie VLK

      Respondent: Obvodný úrad Trenčín

      Third party: Biely potok a.s.

      Operative part of the judgment

   Inasmuch as Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read in conjunction with Article 9(2) and (4) of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, signed in Aarhus on 25 June 1998 and approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005, enshrines the right to effective judicial protection, in conditions ensuring wide access to justice, of the rights which an environmental organisation meeting the conditions laid down in Article 2(5) of that convention derives from EU law, in this instance from Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora as amended by Council Directive 2006/105/EC of 20 November 2006, read in conjunction with Article 6(1)(b) of that convention, it must be interpreted as precluding, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, an interpretation of rules of national procedural law to the effect that an action against a decision refusing such an organisation the status of party to an administrative procedure for authorisation of a project that is to be carried out on a site protected pursuant to Directive 92/43 as amended by Directive 2006/105 does not necessarily have to be examined during the course of that procedure, which may be definitively concluded before a definitive judicial decision on possession of the status of party is adopted, and is automatically dismissed as soon as that project is authorised, thereby requiring that organisation to bring an action of another type in order to obtain that status and to secure judicial review of compliance by the competent national authorities with their obligations stemming from Article 6(3) of that directive.

      (1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2015.


title: Case T-733/14: Action brought on 18 October 2014 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dinamiki v Parliament

text:
               19.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/42

      Action brought on 18 October 2014 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dinamiki v Parliament
      (Case T-733/14)
      (2015/C 016/66)
      Language of the case: Greek

         Parties

         Applicants: European Dynamics (Luxembourg (Luxembourg) and Evropaïki Dinamiki — Proigmena Sistimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: E. Veletsanou and M. Sfiri, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Parliament

         Form of order sought

      The applicants claim that the General Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision of the Parliament D(2014)38802 dated 18 September 2014, whereby the Parliament rejected the applicants’ tender for Lot 3 in the open procurement procedure 2014/S 066-111912 titled ‘PE/ITEC-ITS14 — External provision of IT services’; and

                  —

                  order the European Parliament to pay all the applicants’ costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments in support of annulment

      In support of the action the applicants rely on the following:
      In the opinion of the applicants, the contested decision should be annulled, under Article 263 TFEU, on the ground of the Parliament’s breach of the obligation to state reasons, since the Parliament provided an inadequate statement of reasons with regard to the applicants’ technical offer, with which they participated in the procurement procedure at issue.
      The applicants claim that the reasons stated for the ranking which was given to their technical offer and to that of the other tenderers for Lot 3 of the procurement procedure at issue, with regard to each defined award criterion, did not enable them to understand either the reasons for the ranking which their tender achieved nor the characteristics and advantages of the tenders submitted by other tenderers. The applicants claim that, if an adequate statement of reasons for the ranking of their technical offer were available to them, they would be better able to state their defence.
      The applicants also submit that the Parliament infringed the contractual documents (the tender specifications and supplementary guidelines), which the Parliament had itself drawn up, in relation to the method for the evaluation of the financial offers submitted by the tenderers, and which were binding on it. In so acting, the Parliament infringed both the Financial Regulation and the rules for its application, under which the contracting authority is to conduct a procurement procedure in accordance with the contractual documents and with due regard to the general principles of EU law.


title: Case T-441/08: Action brought on 26 September 2008 — ICO Services Ltd v Parliament and Council

text:
               10.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/33

         Action brought on 26 September 2008 — ICO Services Ltd v Parliament and Council
   (Case T-441/08)
   (2009/C 6/68)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: ICO Services Limited (Slough, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Tupper, Solicitor)

      Defendants: European Parliament and Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought

               —

               Order that Decision No 626/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 2008 on the selection and authorisation of systems providing mobile satellite services (MSS) is void in accordance with the provisions under Article 230 CE and 231 EC;

               —

               Order that the costs of the present action be paid by the defendants and any other orders that the Court may deem appropriate.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By means of its application pursuant to Article 230 EC, the applicant seeks the annulment of Decision No 626/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 2008 on the selection and authorisation of systems providing mobile satellite services (‘MSS’) (1).
   The applicant claims that the contested decision does not address the existence of, nor gives consideration to, any MSS System's pre-existing rights to band-width on the 2 GHz spectrum, whether derived from the International Telecommunications Union (‘ITU’) or the European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administration regimes. Moreover, the applicant submits that the contested decision has the effect of depriving it of property rights accrued to it under international law that permit the applicant to offer MSS worldwide without unlawful interference. In fact, the applicant claims to be the sole operator with a system, ‘ICO-P’, providing MSS services in the 2 GHz Band. According to the applicant, the contested decision attempts to allocate frequencies in the 2 GHz Band without affording ICO-P's rights appropriate recognition, thereby putting EU Member States in contravention of their Treaty obligations with respect to the relevant rules of the ITU.
   The applicant, moreover, claims that the contested decision ignores the existence of the applicant's rights and sets up a system through which the applicant's right to use the 2 GHz spectrum is infringed. Moreover, it is submitted that the decision puts in great jeopardy the applicant's considerable investments to date and forces the applicant to participate to the EU tender process while interfering in the day-to-day running of its business.
   Further, the applicant claims that by adopting the contested decision, the defendant has acted disproportionately and in a discriminatory way, contrary to the applicant's legitimate expectations. In fact, the applicant contends, that contrary to its rights and/or legitimate expectations, the contested decision is founded on the premise that the whole of the 2 GHz spectrum is available for allocation, since it provides for the selection and authorisation of operators of MSS to utilise the entire range of frequencies existing in the 2 GHz spectrum.
   In addition, it is submitted that the contested decision violates the applicant's rights to the peaceful enjoyment of the benefits accorded to the ICO-P system as a result of recognition of the recording by the ITU in the Master International Frequency Register maintained by the ITU, and other similar property rights, contrary to Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention of Human Rights and international law.

      (1)  OJ 2008 L 172, p. 15.


title: Case T-87/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 November 2008 — Scil proteins v OHIM — Indena ( affilene ) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark affilene — Earlier Community word mark AFFILIN — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity between products — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               10.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/26

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 November 2008 — Scil proteins v OHIM — Indena (affilene)
   (Case T-87/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark affilene - Earlier Community word mark AFFILIN - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity between products - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2009/C 6/52)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Scil proteins GmbH (Halle, Germany) (represented by: V. Dalichau and I.-M. Helbig, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Indena SpA (Milan, Italy)
   Re:
   ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 January 2007 (Case R 10/2006-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Scil proteins GmbH and Indena SpA.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 23 January 2007 (Case R 10/2006-2) in so far as it dismisses the opposition with respect to the following goods: ‘extracts of medicinal plants for use in the pharmaceutical, cosmetic and food industries, not for diagnostic purposes’;

               2.

               Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 117, 26.5.2007.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 25 June 1998 in Joined Cases T-371/94 and T-394/94: British Airways plc and Others and British Midland Airways Ltd v Commission of the European Communities (State aid - Air transport - Airline company in a critical financial situation - Authorisation for an increase in capital)

text:
C 258/30             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  15.8.98
     does not receive taxable earned income or receives             Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
     insignificant earned income, under national law the            Administratif de Chalons en Champagne (Administrative
     assessment is made in the name of both spouses, and,           Court, Chalons en Champagne) (First Chamber) by
     with the exception of earned income, the income of             judgment of that court of 23 June 1998 in the case of
     the spouses is aggregated with the income of the               Hugo Fernando Hocsman v Minister for Employment and
     spouse who receives more, and, where the income of                                       Solidarity
     a spouse is less than 30 % of the aggregate earned                                    (Case C-238/98)
     income of both spouses, there is attributed to him a
                                                                                (98/C 258/50)
     portion of the earned income of the other spouse
     which, together with his own earned income, enables
     him to attain 30 % of that income, subject to a                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     maximum of BFR 270 000 (indexed), which may                    European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal
     result, by virtue of the progressive nature of tax rates,      Administratif de Chalons en Champagne (First Chamber)
     in a reduction of the tax payable by the spouses?              of 23 June 1998, which was received at the Court Registry
                                                                    on 7 July 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                    Hugo Fernando Hocsman v Minister for Employment and
(2) as prohibiting a Member State from refusing, by
                                                                    Solidarity on the following question:
     recourse to the separate taxation described under
     No 1, the benefit of the marital allowance for the             The Tribunal Administratif de Chalons en Champagne
     spouse of a European official, with the exception of           (First Chamber) seeks a preliminary ruling on the question
     those who declare that they receive earned income              whether an equivalence accorded by one Member State
     which is exempted under a convention, without                  means that another Member State is required to verify, on
     reservation as to progressive rates of taxation, of less       the basis of Article 52 of the Treaty of Rome, whether
     than BFR 270 000 (indexed), who does not receive               the experience and qualifications evidenced thereby
     non-exempted income of a sufficient amount for the             correspond to those required for the award of national
     benefit of the marital allowance to be totally offset          diplomas and other formal qualifications, in particular
     by the tax due by virtue of the aggregation of the             in the case where the person benefiting from such
     spouses' income and the progressive nature of the tax          equivalence holds a diploma providing evidence of
     rates'?                                                        specialist training acquired in a Member State and
                                                                    included in the scope of a directive concerning the mutual
                                                                    recognition of diplomas.
                                                   COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                           (United Kingdom), represented by Kevin F. Bodley,
                       of 25 June 1998                              Solicitor, and Konstantinos Adamantopoulos, of the
                                                                    Athens Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
in Joined Cases T-371/94 and T-394/94: British Airways              the Chambers of ArseÁne Kronshagen, 12 Boulevard de la
plc and Others and British Midland Airways Ltd v                    Foire, supported in Case T-371/94 by Kingdom of
       Commission of the European Communities (1)                   Sweden, (Agent: Staffan Sandström), Kingdom of Norway,
(State aid Ð Air transport Ð Airline company in a critical          (Agent: Margit Tveiten), Maersk Air I/S, established in
financial situation Ð Authorisation for an increase in              Dragùer (Denmark), and Maersk Air Ltd, established in
                            capital)                                Birmingham (United Kingdom), represented by Roderic
                                                                    O'Sullivan and Philip Wareham, Solicitors, having an
                        (98/C 258/51)                               address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                    Arendt & Medernach, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, and in
               (Language of the cases: English)                     both cases, Kingdom of Denmark (Agent: Peter Biering)
                                                                    and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
In Joined Cases T-371/94 and T-394/94: British Airways              Ireland (Agents: John E. Collins and Richard Plender) v
plc, established in Hounslow (United Kingdom),                      Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
Scandinavian Airlines System Denmark-Norway-Sweden,                 Nicholas Khan, Ben Smulders and Ami Barav), supported
established in Stockholm, Koninklijke Luchtvaart                    by French Republic (Agents: Marc Perrin de Brichambaut,
Maatschappij NV, established in Amstelveen (the                     Edwige Belliard, Catherine de Salins and Jean-Marc
Netherlands), Air UK Ltd, established in Stansted (United           Belorgey) and Compagnie Nationale Air France,
Kingdom), Euralair International, established in Bonneuil           established in Paris, represented by Olivier d'Ormesson, of
(France), TAT European Airlines, established in Tours               the Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
(France), represented by Romano Subiotto, Solicitor, with           at the Chambers of Jacques Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe Ð
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of             application for the annulment of Commission Decision 94/
Elvinger, Hoss & Prussen, 15 Côte d'Eich, and British               653/EC of 27 July 1994 concerning the notified capital
Midland Airways Ltd, established in Castle Donington                increase of Air France (OJ L 254 of 30.9. 1994, p. 73) Ð
 ---pagebreak--- 15.8.98              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                C 258/31
the Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition),                   of 19 December 1994 adjusting, with effect from 1 July
composed of: C. W. Bellamy, President, K. Lenaerts, C. P.           1994, the remuneration and pensions of officials and other
BrieÈt, A. Kalogeropoulos and A. Potocki, Judges; J.                servants of the European Communities and the weightings
Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator, has given a judgment on           applied thereto (OJ L 335 of 23.12.1994, p. 1), and,
25 June 1998, in which it:                                          secondly, applications for the payment of arrears, together
                                                                    with default interest at the rate of 8 % Ð the Court of
1. Joins Cases T-371/94 and T-394/94 for the purposes of            First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of A.
     judgment;                                                      Kalogeropoulos, President, C. W. Bellamy and J. Pirrung,
                                                                    Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 7 July
2. Annuls Commission Decision 94/653/EC of 27 July                  1998, in which it:
     1994 concerning the notified capital increase of Air
     France;
                                                                    1. Dismisses the actions.
3. Orders the Commission to pay the costs, including
     those of the interveners Maersk Air I/S and Maersk
     Air Ltd;                                                       2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
4. Orders Compagnie Nationale Air France, the French                (1) OJ 1996 C 64.
     Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, the United
     Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the
     Kingdom of Sweden and the Kingdom of Norway to
     bear their own costs.
(1) OJ C 386 of 31.12.1994 and C 392 of 31.12.1994.
                                                                         ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 10 June 1998
                                                                    in Case T-116/95: Cementir-Cementerie del Tirreno SpA v
                                                                            Commission of the European Communities (1)
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                      (Second Chamber)                                  (Inadmissibility Ð Confirmatory act Ð Lis pendens)
                        of 7 July 1998                                                      (98/C 258/53)
in Joined Cases T-238/95, T-239/95, T-240/95, T-241/95
and T-242/95: Francesco Mongelli v Commission of
                the European Communities (1)                                       (Language of the case: Italian)
(Officials Ð Pensions Ð Weighting Ð Determination Ð
                        Exchange rate)                              In Case T-116/95: Cementir-Cementerie del Tirreno SpA,
                        (98/C 258/52)                               established in Rome, represented by Gian Michele Roberti
                                                                    and Antonio Tizzano, of the Naples Bar, with an address
                (Language of the case: Italian)                     for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain
                                                                    Lorang, 51 Rue Albert 1er, v Commission of the European
In Joined Cases T-238/95, T-239/95, T-240/95, T-241/95              Communities (Agent: Giuliano Marenco) Ð application
and T-242/95: Francesco Mongelli, former official of the            for annulment of a letter of 2 March 1995 from the
Commission of the European Communities, residing in                 Commission rejecting a request for reduction of the fine
Cecina (Italy), Alberto Castagnoli, former official of the          imposed on the applicant by Commission Decision 94/
Commission of the European Communities, residing in                 815/EC of 30 November 1994 relating to a proceeding
Segrate (Italy), Eduardo Capuano, former official of the            under Article 85 of the EC Treaty (Cases IV/33.126 and
Commission of the European Communities, residing at                 33.322 Ð Cement) (OJ L 343 of 30.12.1994, p. 1) Ð the
Rome, Vittorio Sadini, former official of the Commission            Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended
of the European Communities, residing in Segrate (Italy),           Composition), composed of P. Lindh, President, and R.
and Lando Tinelli, former official of the Commission of             García-Valdecasas, K. Lenaerts, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger,
the European Communities, residing at Rome, represented             Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 10 June
by Giuseppe Marchesini, advocate with the right of                  1998, the operative part of which is as follows:
audience before the Corte Suprema di Cassazione, with
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
of Ernst Arendt, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, against                    1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
Gianluigi Valsesia), supported by Council of European
Communities (Agents: Diego Canga Fano, Marco-                       2. The applicant shall pay the costs.
Umberto Moricca and Paolo Martino Cossu) Ð first,
application for annulment of the applicants' pension                (1) OJ C 208 of 12.8.1995.
statements in respect of the period from January 1995, in
so far as they apply the weighting fixed for Italy at 94.2
by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom, ECSC) No 3161/94


title: Case F-33/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 20 March 2014  — Marcuccio v Commission (Civil service — Article 34(1) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure — Application lodged by fax within the time-limit for bringing proceedings — Lawyer’s handwritten signature different from that on the original application received by post — Action out of time — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/55

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 20 March 2014 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case F-33/13)
   ((Civil service - Article 34(1) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure - Application lodged by fax within the time-limit for bringing proceedings - Lawyer’s handwritten signature different from that on the original application received by post - Action out of time - Manifest inadmissibility))
   2014/C 421/78
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa and L. Mansullo, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s request for payment of financial compensation for the days of leave not taken when he was on sick leave from 4 January 2002 to 31 May 2005.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Mr Marcuccio is order to bear his own costs.


title: Case C-600/10: Action brought on 16 December 2010 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               12.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/11

         Action brought on 16 December 2010 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-600/10)
   2011/C 80/21
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and W. Mölls, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by maintaining legal provisions according to which dividends paid to pension funds subject to limited tax liability and interest which is paid to such pension funds and to pension insurance schemes subject to limited tax liability are taxed less favourably than dividends or interest paid to pension insurance schemes subject to unlimited tax liability or pension funds subject to unlimited tax liability, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 TFEU and Article 40 of the EEA Agreement;

               —

               Order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The subject of the present action are the German rules according to which dividends which are paid to pension funds subject to limited tax liability (non-resident funds) and interest which is paid to such pension funds and to pension insurance schemes subject to limited tax liability are taxed less favourably than dividends or interest paid to pension insurance schemes subject to unlimited tax liability (domestic schemes) or pension funds subject to unlimited tax liability.
   The non-resident pension funds and pension insurance schemes are discriminated against compared to similar domestic funds or schemes for the following three reasons:

               Interest received by pension insurance schemes is not subject to the tax on revenue from capital assets or corporation tax where the recipient of that interest is a tax-exempt domestic pension insurance scheme. There is thus no taxation of the income concerned. There is no similar exemption from the tax on revenue from capital assets for non-resident pension insurance schemes, meaning that that tax is levied in every case to the extent of 25 % of the gross sum, including solidarity supplement.

               With regard to the taxation of dividends received by pension funds, domestic pension funds may include the tax on revenue from capital assets in an assessment procedure. That means, first, that operating costs can be deducted from tax and only net revenue is taxed. Second, the tax on revenue from capital assets is set off against general tax liability, with the result that the general corporation tax rate of 15 % is applied. Non-resident pension funds are however not entitled to such adjustments: the contested rules exclude them entirely from deducting operating costs, including those which are directly related to income received in Germany.

               Finally, with regard to the taxation of the interest received by pension funds, the legal situation is essentially the same as that which applies where dividends are received by pension funds: as in the case of dividends, non-resident pension funds are therefore discriminated against, both with regard to the deduction of operating costs and the rate of taxation.

               According to the Commission, that discrimination of non-resident pension insurance schemes and pension funds is incompatible with the free movement of capital. In none of the cases is there an objective justification for the distinction in question.

               Article 63 TFEU prohibits all measures which treat the cross-border movement of capital less favourably than the movement of capital within a Member State. In that context, Article 65(1)(a) TFEU cannot be understood as meaning that all tax law provisions which distinguish between taxpayers with regard to their place of residence or with regard to the place where their capital is invested are without further consideration compatible with the Treaty. That provision is subject to the limitation contained in Article 65(3) TFEU, according to which the national measures referred to in Article 63(1) are not to constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on the free movement of capital and payments as defined in Article 63. Such distinctions are compatible with EU law only in so far as they are applied to situations which are not objectively comparable or if they are justified by overriding reasons in the public interest. Such a justification is valid only to the extent that the provisions do not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve the intended objective.

               With regard to the deduction of operating costs, the Commission would like to point out that the Member States must also comply with the prohibitions on discrimination enshrined in the Treaty with regard to withholding taxes. In that context, the source State may not rely on unilateral rules in another Member State in order to avoid complying with its own obligations. Germany has not submitted that agreement has been reached with the other Member States that they deduct operating costs instead of Germany. Even if there were such an agreement, it would often not achieve the objective, for example where the revenue concerned is tax-exempt in the other State or the taxpayer does not make any overall profit. In addition, where the imputation method is used, the deduction of operating costs in the State of residence cannot replace that in the source State. In that case both States namely tax, in principle, the same income. Accordingly, taxation of net revenue rather than gross revenue is guaranteed only where both States apply their provisions on the deduction of operating costs. Deduction by the source State does not therefore lead to a double burden but merely establishes equal treatment vis-à-vis purely internal situations.


title: Case T-193/11: Action brought on 31 March 2011 — Ahoua-N’Guetta and Others v Council

text:
               21.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 152/31

         Action brought on 31 March 2011 — Ahoua-N’Guetta and Others v Council
   (Case T-193/11)
   2011/C 152/55
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Timothée Ahoua-N’Guetta (Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire), Jacques André Monoko Daligou (Abidjan), Bruno Walé Ekpo (Abidjan), Félix Tano Kouakou (Abidjan), Hortense Sess (Abidjan); and Joséphine Suzanne Ebah (Abidjan) (represented by: J.-C. Tchikaya, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Forms of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011 amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d'Ivoire, and Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d'Ivoire, in so far as they concern the applicants;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments relied on by the applicants are essentially identical or similar to those submitted in Case T-118/11 Attey v Council


title: Case C-26/15 P: Appeal brought on 22 January 2015 by the Kingdom of Spain against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 November 2014 in Case T-481/11 Spain v Commission

text:
               16.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/13

         Appeal brought on 22 January 2015 by the Kingdom of Spain against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 November 2014 in Case T-481/11 Spain v Commission
   (Case C-26/15 P)
   (2015/C 089/14)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that the present appeal is well founded and set aside the judgment of the General Court of 13 November 2014 in Case T-481/11 Spain v Commission;

               —

               annul the fifth indent of point D of section VI of Part 2 of Annex I to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 (1) of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors;

               —

               order the respondent to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Error of law as regards the scope of the obligation to state reasons. The reasoning on which the General Court relies does not correspond with the necessary clarity and lack of ambiguity that the statement of reasons for a regulation must satisfy in order to meet the requirements of Article 296 TFEU. In fact, the General Court filled the gaps in the statement of reasons for the contested regulation and substituted its own reasoning for the statement of reasons of the contested measure.

      Error of law as regards the principle of equal treatment. The General Court’s reasoning on this issue is not based on appropriate criteria for making the comparison. The General Court based its reasoning on an allegedly well-known fact, which is not supported by fact or science, namely the distinction between fruits with thick rind and those with thin rind and the inclusion of citrus fruit in the first category.

      Error of law as regards judicial review of the principle of proportionality. The review by the General Court as to the proportionality of a restriction on the trade in goods imposed by an institution must be carried out having regard to the Commission’s broad margin of discretion. However, the General Court did not carry out its judicial review in accordance with the Tetra Laval (2) case-law. First, it did not review properly the relevance and appropriateness of the elements on which the adopted decision is based as regards the grounds justifying the restriction. Second, it did not examine correctly the conclusions drawn from the data, so that the restriction goes beyond what is necessary in order to achieve the objective pursued.

      (1)  OJ 2011 L 157, p. 1.

      (2)  Judgment of 15 February 2005 in Commission v Tetra Laval (C-12/03 P, EU:C:2005:87), paragraph 39.


title: Case T-417/03: Order of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 14 January 2008 — Fédération Internationale des Maisons de l'Europe v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/63

         Order of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 14 January 2008 — Fédération Internationale des Maisons de l'Europe v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-417/03) (1)

   (2008/C 64/102)

      Language of the case: French

   The President of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 59, 6.3.2004.


title: Case T-666/11: Judgment of the General Court of 7 November 2013 — Budziewska v OHIM — Puma (Bounding feline) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a bounding feline — Earlier designs — Ground for invalidity — Lack of individual character — Informed user — Degree of freedom of the designer — Overall impression not different — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

text:
               21.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 377/13

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 November 2013 — Budziewska v OHIM — Puma (Bounding feline)
   (Case T-666/11) (1)

   (Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a bounding feline - Earlier designs - Ground for invalidity - Lack of individual character - Informed user - Degree of freedom of the designer - Overall impression not different - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of regulation (EC) No 6/2002)
   2013/C 377/29
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Danuta Budziewska (Łódź, Poland) (represented by: J. Masłowski, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 September 2011 (Case R 1137/2010-3) relating to invalidity proceedings between Puma AG Rudolf Dassler Sport and Danuta Budziewska.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Danuta Budziewska to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 109, 14.4.2012.


title: Case C-406/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles (17th Chamber), by judgment of that court of 8 September 2004 in the case of Gérald de Cuyper v Office national de l'emploi

text:
               20.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 284/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles (17th Chamber), by judgment of that court of 8 September 2004 in the case of Gérald de Cuyper v Office national de l'emploi
   (Case C-406/04)
   (2004/C 284/21)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by the Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles (Labour Court, Brussels) (17th Chamber) by judgment of that court of 8 September 2004, in the case of Gérald de Cuyper v Office national de l'emploi, received at the Court Registry on 23 September 2004.
   The Tribunal de travail de Bruxelles (17th Chamber) has asked the Court to give a preliminary ruling on the following questions:
   ‘Does the obligation actually to reside in Belgium, which under Article 66 of the Royal Decree of 25 November 1991 regulating unemployment is a condition for the award of benefits, applied to an unemployed person aged over 50 who enjoys an exemption under Article 89 of that Royal Decree from the requirement to sign on which entails dispensation from the requirement to be available for work, amount to a fetter on the freedom of movement and residence of all European citizens under Articles 17 and 18 of the Treaty establishing the European Community?
   Does the obligation of residence in the State competent to award unemployment benefits, justified in domestic law by the needs of monitoring compliance with the statutory requirements for the payment of benefits to unemployed persons, satisfy the requirement of proportionality which must be observed in the pursuit of that objective of general interest in that it constitutes a limitation on the freedom of movement and residence of all European citizens under Articles 17 and 18 of the Treaty establishing the European Community?
   Does that residence requirement not have the effect of discriminating between European citizens who are nationals of a Member State competent to award unemployment benefits by affording that entitlement to those who do not exercise the right to freedom of movement and residence of all European citizens under Articles 17 and 18 of the Treaty, whilst denying it to those who do seek to exercise that right, by the deterrent effect which that restriction entails?’


title: Case T-85/14: Action brought on 7 February 2014 — Infocit v OHIM — DIN (DINKOOL)

text:
               5.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 135/48

         Action brought on 7 February 2014 — Infocit v OHIM — DIN (DINKOOL)
   (Case T-85/14)
   2014/C 135/62
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Infocit — Prestação de Serviços, Comércio e Indústria, Lda (Luanda, Angola) (represented by: A. Oliveira, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: DIN — Deutsches Institut für Normung eV (Berlin, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 November 2013 given in Case R 1106/2012-2.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘DINKOOL’ for goods in Classes 7, 9 and 11 — Community trade mark application No 9 768 061

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: International trade mark registration No 229 048 of the figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘DIN’ for goods in Classes 1 to 34 and an earlier non-registered word mark ‘DIN’ in Germany

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

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Granted the appeal, annulled the contested decision and rejected the contested Community trade mark application in its entirety

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b), 8(4) and 8(5) CTMR.


title: Case C-385/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Székesfehérvári Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 13 August 2012 — Hervis Sport- és Divatkereskedelmi Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Közép-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága

text:
               24.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 366/24

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Székesfehérvári Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 13 August 2012 — Hervis Sport- és Divatkereskedelmi Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Közép-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága
   (Case C-385/12)
   2012/C 366/41
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Székesfehérvári Törvényszék

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Hervis Sport- és Divatkereskedelmi Kft.

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

      Question referred

   Is the fact that taxpayers engaged in store retail trade have to pay a special tax if their net annual turnover is higher than HUF 500 million compatible with the provisions of the EC Treaty governing the principle of the general prohibition of discrimination (Articles 18 TFEU and 26 TFEU), the principle of freedom of establishment (Article 49 TFEU), the principle of equal treatment (Article 54 TFEU), the principle of equal treatment as regards participation in the capital of companies or firms within the meaning of Article 54 (Article 55 TFEU), the principle of freedom to provide services (Article 56 TFEU), the principle of the free movement of capital (Articles 63 TFEU and 65 TFEU) and the principle of equality of taxation of companies (Article 110 TFEU)?


title: Case T-284/08: Action brought on 21 July 2008 — People's Mojahedin of Iran v Council

text:
               13.9.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/16

         Action brought on 21 July 2008 — People's Mojahedin of Iran v Council
   (Case T-284/08)
   (2008/C 236/27)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (Auvers sur Oise, France) (represented by: J.-P. Spitzer, lawyer and D. Vaughan, QC)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought

               —

               To annul Decision 2008/583/EC of the Council insofar as it applies to the applicant;

               —

               To order the defendant to pay the applicant's costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant seeks, pursuant to Article 230 EC, partial annulment and in so far as it concerns the applicant, of Council Decision 2008/583/EC of 15 July 2008 (1) (‘the contested decision’) implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2007/868/EC.
   In support of its application, the applicant submits that the contested decision should be annulled because, in so far as it relates to the inclusion of the applicant on the list of terrorist organisations, there was no relevant decision at the time from a competent national authority sufficient to form any justification for the decision. In addition, the applicant claims that the decision should be annulled because while it was said to be based on ‘new information’ and on a decision from a competent authority other than that of the United Kingdom, the evidence on which the Council relied was not disclosed to the applicant before adopting the decision. Further, the applicant claims that no justification was given as to why such information was to be treated as new, or relevant.
   The applicant puts forward that the contested decision was taken without any proper evaluation of the new information and on whether that constituted concrete and reliable evidence upon which the Council was entitled to act, in order to prove that the applicant was engaged in terrorism.
   Furthermore, the applicant contends that the contested decision was adopted in violation of the applicant's right to be heard and its fundamental rights. The applicant submits, finally, that the contested decision was adopted in circumstances which amounted to an abuse or misuse of procedures and/or powers.

      (1)  OJ 2008 L 188, p. 21.


title: Case C-242/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 4 June 2008 — Swiss Re Germany Holding GmbH v Finanzamt München für Körperschaften

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/23

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 4 June 2008 — Swiss Re Germany Holding GmbH v Finanzamt München für Körperschaften
   (Case C-242/08)
   (2008/C 223/36)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesfinanzhof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Swiss Re Germany Holding GmbH

      Defendant: Finanzamt München für Körperschaften
   Questions referred

               1.

               Must the fifth indent of Article 9(2)(e) and Article 13B(a) and the second and third subparagraphs of Article 13B(d) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes be interpreted as meaning where in consideration for payment of the sales price by the purchaser a transfer (1) of a life reinsurance contract is effected, on the basis of which, with the consent of the policyholder, the contract's purchaser takes over the exempted reinsurance activities of the previous insurer and in place of the previous insurer supplies to the policyholder tax-exempt reinsurance services, that such transfer must be regarded

                           (a)

                           as an insurance or banking transaction within the meaning of the fifth indent of Article 9(2)(e) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, or

                           (b)

                           as a reinsurance transaction in accordance with Article 13B(a) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, or

                           (c)

                           as a transaction which in substance consists of the tax-exempt assumption of an obligation and an exempt transaction concerning debts in accordance with Article 13B(d)(2) and (3) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes?

               2.

               Is the answer to Question 1 any different where payment in respect of the transfer is made not by the purchaser but the previous insurer?

               3.

               If alternatives (a), (b) and (c) of Question 1 are all answered in the negative, must Article 13B(c) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes be interpreted as meaning that

                           —

                           the transfer of life reinsurance contracts in return for consideration constitutes a supply of goods and

                           —

                           that in the application of Article 13B(c) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes no distinction is to be drawn whether the place in which the exempted activities are effected lies in the Member State in which the goods are supplied or in a different Member State?

      (1)  OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.


title: Judgment of the Court of 25 February 2003 in Case C-326/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Dioikitiko Protodikeio Thessalonikis): Idryma Koinonikon Asfaliseon (IKA) v Vasilios Ioannidis (Social security — Hospital treatment of a pensioner during a stay in a Member State other than the State in which he resides — Conditions for funding — Articles 31 and 96 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Articles 31 and 93 of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72)

text:
C 101/2                  EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                              26.4.2003
Finland (Agent: T. Pynnä): Application for a declaration                     Articles 31 and 93 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of
that, by failing to classify special protection areas fully and              21 March 1972 laying down the procedure for implementing
definitively, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its               Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, as amended and updated by
obligations under Article 4(1) and (2) of Council Directive 79/              Regulation No 2001/83, as amended by Regulation No 3096/
409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds                    95, of Articles 56 and 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after
(OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed                   amendment, Articles 46 EC and 49 EC) and 60 of the EC
of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen                 Treaty (now Article 50 EC), and of Article 1 of the Protocol to
and C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), F. Macken and J.N. Cunha                        the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights
Rodrigues, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; H. von Holstein,              and Fundamental Freedoms, the Court, composed of: G.C. Rod-
Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 March 2003, in                   ríguez Iglesias, President, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen and
which it:                                                                    C.W.A. Timmermans (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann,
                                                                             D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur), P. Jann, V. Skouris,
(1) Declares that, by failing to classify fully and definitively the         F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues,
      SPAs in its territory, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil    Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,
      its obligations under Article 4(1) and (2) of Council Directive        Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
      79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild                 on 25 February 2003, in which it has ruled:
      birds.
(2) Orders the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.
( 1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.
                                                                             1.   Article 31 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of
                                                                                14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to
                                                                                employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of
                                                                                their families moving within the Community, as amended and
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                           updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June
                                                                                1983, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 3096/95
                                                                                of 22 December 1995, must be interpreted as meaning that
                        of 25 February 2003
                                                                                enjoyment of the benefits in kind guaranteed by that provision
                                                                                to pensioners staying in a Member State other than their State
in Case C-326/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling                              of residence is not subject to the condition that the illness which
from the Dioikitiko Protodikeio Thessalonikis): Idryma                            necessitated the treatment in question manifested itself suddenly
     Koinonikon Asfaliseon (IKA) v Vasilios Ioannidis (1)                         during such a stay, making that treatment immediately
                                                                                necessary. That provision therefore precludes a Member State
(Social security — Hospital treatment of a pensioner during                       from subjecting that enjoyment to such a condition.
a stay in a Member State other than the State in which he
resides — Conditions for funding — Articles 31 and 96 of
Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Articles 31 and 93 of
                   Regulation (EEC) No 574/72)
                           (2003/C 101/04)                                   2.   Article 31 of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and
                                                                                updated by Regulation No 2001/83, as amended by Regu-
                     (Language of the case: Greek)                                lation No 3096/95, precludes a Member State from subjecting
                                                                                the enjoyment of the benefits in kind guaranteed by that
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published            provision to any authorisation procedure.
                    in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-326/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Diikitiko Protodikio Thessalonikis (Greece) for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court              3.   The provision and funding of the benefits in kind referred to in
between Idryma Koinonikon Asfaliseon (IKA) and Vasilios                           Article 31 of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and
Ioannidis on the interpretation of Articles 31 and 36 of                          updated by Regulation No 2001/83, as amended by Regu-
Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the                        lation No 3096/95, must normally take place in accordance
application of social security schemes to employed persons, to                    with the provisions of that article in conjunction with Article 36
self-employed persons and to members of their families                            of that regulation and Articles 31 and 93 of Council Regulation
moving within the Community, as amended and updated by                            (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 laying down the
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 (OJ                            procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71,
1983 L 230, p. 6), as amended by Council Regulation (EC)                          as amended and updated by Regulation No 2001/83, as
No 3096/95 of 22 December 1995 (OJ 1995 L 335, p. 10), of                         amended by Regulation No 3096/95.
 ---pagebreak--- 26.4.2003                 EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                  C 101/3
4.    Where it appears that the institution of the place of stay has           before that court between Santex SpA and Unità Socio
      wrongly refused to provide the benefits in kind referred to in           Sanitaria Locale n. 42 di Pavia, interveners: Sca Mölnlycke
      Article 31 of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and                      SpA, Artsana SpA and Fater SpA, on the interpretation of
      updated by Regulation No 2001/83, as amended by Regu-                    Article 22 of Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993
      lation No 3096/95, and the institution of the place of                   coordinating procedures for the award of public supply
      residence, on being advised of that refusal, has declined to             contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 1) and Article 6(2) EU, the Court
      contribute, as it is obliged to, to facilitating the correct             (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of
      application of that provision, it is for the latter institution,         the Chamber, R. Schintgen and V. Skouris (Rapporteur),
      without prejudice to the possible liability of the institution of        F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate
      the place of stay, to reimburse directly to the insured person the       General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
      cost of the treatment he has had to bear, so as to guarantee him         has given a judgment on 27 February 2003, in which it has
      a level of funding equivalent to that which he would have                ruled:
      enjoyed had the provisions of that article been complied with.
                                                                               Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the
5.    In the latter case, Articles 31 and 36 of Regulation No 1408/            coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
      71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 2001/83, as                  relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public
      amended by Regulation No 3096/95, and Articles 31 and 93                 supply and public works contracts, as amended by Council Directive
      of Regulation No 574/72, as amended and updated by                       92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of
      Regulation No 2001/83, as amended by Regulation                          procedures for the award of public service contracts, must be
      No 3096/95, preclude national legislation from subjecting                interpreted as imposing on the competent national courts, where it is
      such reimbursement to the obtaining of ex post facto authoris-           established that, by its conduct, a contracting authority has rendered
      ation which is granted only in so far as it is shown that the            impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of the rights conferred
      illness which necessitated the treatment in question manifested          by the Community legal order on a national of the Union who has
      itself suddenly during the stay, making that treatment immedi-           been harmed by a decision of that contracting authority, an obligation
      ately necessary.                                                         to allow as admissible pleas in law alleging that the notice of
                                                                               invitation to tender is incompatible with Community law, which are
                                                                               put forward in support of an application for review of that decision,
( 1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.                                                   by availing itself, where appropriate, of the possibility afforded by
                                                                               national law of disapplying national rules on limitation periods,
                                                                               under which, when the period prescribed for bringing proceedings for
                                                                               review of the notice of invitation to tender has expired, it is no longer
                                                                               possible to plead such incompatibility.
                                                                               (1 ) OJ C 36 of 4.11.2000.
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         of 27 February 2003
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
in Case C-327/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia):                                              of 27 February 2003
Santex SpA v Unità Socio Sanitaria Locale n. 42 di Pavia (1)
                                                                               in Case C-373/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                               the Vergabekontrollsenat des Landes Wien): Adolf Truley
(Directive 93/36/EEC — Public supply contracts — Directive                                   GmbH v Bestattung Wien GmbH ( 1)
89/665/EEC — Review procedures applicable to public
 contracts — Limitation period — Principle of effectiveness)                   (Directive 93/36/EEC — Public supply contracts — Concept
                                                                               of ‘contracting authority’ — Public-law body — Funeral
                            (2003/C 101/05)                                                                 undertaking)
                                                                                (2003/C 101/06)
                      (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-327/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234                     In Case C-373/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia                  EC by the Vergabekontrollsenat des Landes Wien (Austria) for
(Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending                    a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that


title: Case T-54/99: Action brought on 22 February 1999 by max.mobil. Telekommunikation Service GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 100/22              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 10.4.1999
    Fernwärmetechnik         Kartell),   as     amended      by      Vienna, Austria, represented by Dr Stefan Köck,
    Commission Decision K(1998) 3415 final of                        Rechtsanwalt, of Bruckhaus Westrick Heller Löber,
    6 November 1998 (Case IV/35.691 Ð Vorisolierte                   Vienna, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
    Rohre), in so far as it refers to the applicant, holding         Chambers of Bonn & Schmitt, 62 Avenue Guillaume.
    it liable for participation in the overall agreement';
                                                                     The apllicant claims that the Court should:
Ð in the alternative, annul Article 3 of the decision in so
    far as it sets the applicant's fine at ECU 400 000, or
    substantially reduce the fine;                                   1.    annul that part of the Commission's decision,
                                                                           notified to the applicant by letter (D 18497) of
                                                                           11 December 1998,
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                     1.1. by which the Commission rejected the applicant's
                                                                           application to the Commission to declare that the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
                                                                           Republic of Austria had infringed Article 90(1) in
                                                                           conjunction with Article 86 of the EC Treaty,
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
in Case T-9/99 HFB Holding and Others v.                                   Ð by placing Mobilkom in a more favourable
Commission (1).                                                                position than the applicant, with respect both to
                                                                               determination of the amount and to the terms of
                                                                               payment of the concession fee, and
The applicant pleads in particular that the Commission
has failed to state adequate grounds in relation to the                    Ð be giving preference to the third network
applicant's participation in the infringement at issue, and                    operator, Connect, over the applicant when
has erroneously assessed the role played by the European                       determining the amount of the concession fee,
District Heating Pipe Manufacturers' Association in the                        and
context of the overall agreement.
                                                                     1.2. by which the Commission rejected the applicant's
Concerning the reduction in the basic amount of the fine                   application,
owing to the secondary role played by the applicant in the
infringement, the applicant maintains that only in the case                Ð to the Commission to require the Republic
of Sigma is it possible to dispute the company's                               of Austria to create equal conditions of
membership of the contact grop for the market concerned,                       competition for mobile telephone operators, by
or at least knowledge that it formed part of an overall                        prescribing additional concession fees or partially
agreement, whereas Ke-Kelit had never denied such                              waiving concession fees; and
knowledge.
(1) OJ C 86, 27.3.1999, p. 24.                                       2.    order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
                                                                     The applicant, which entered on the Austrian market in
                                                                     October 1996 as the second operator of a GSM mobile
Action brought on 22 February 1999 by max.mobil.                     communications network after Mobilkom Austria AG, a
Telekommunikation          Service     GmbH      against    the      company predominantly owned by the State, lodged a
          Commission of the European Communities                     complaint with the Commission in October 1997. It
                                                                     complained that it had been treated less favourably than
                         (Case T-54/99)
                                                                     Mobilkom Austria and the third mobile network operator
                        (1999/C 100/42)                              Connect Austria, which had in the meantime entered the
                                                                     market in August 1997, with respect to the determination
                                                                     and terms of collection of the fees for GSM concessions,
               (Language of the case: German)                        and submitted that there had been a breach of
                                                                     Article 90(1) in conjunction with Article 86 of the EC
                                                                     Treaty.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on February 1999                By the decision contained in the Commission's letter of
by max.mobil. Telekommunikation Service GmbH, of                     11 December 1998 the applicant was assured that its
 ---pagebreak--- 10.4.1999           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 100/23
complaint would be pursued in part. As regards the                Ð    unlawfully failed, at least in part, to apply Article 90
contested amount of the concession fee, the Commission                 of the EC Treaty to the facts before it, interpreted
stated that the applicant had produced no evidence of an               that provision in a manifestly wrong way, and made
abuse of a dominant position and pointed out that in                   an incorrect assessment of the facts;
comparable cases, according to its practice hitherto, it had
started proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations only
when a Member State had imposed a higher concession               Ð    by giving an inadequate statement of reasons,
fee on an undertaking newly entering the market than on                infringed     essential    procedural       requirements
the undertaking already active in the market.                          (Article 190 of the EC Treaty), since in its decision,
                                                                       in only two sentences, it restricted itself to describing
                                                                       the applicant's statements as insufficient and referred
According to      the  applicant,   in  its   decision   the           generally to its practice hitherto', which may not be
Commission:                                                            regarded as sufficient.


title: Case T-139/09: Action brought on 8 April 2009 — France v Commission

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/49

         Action brought on 8 April 2009 — France v Commission
   (Case T-139/09)
   2009/C 141/103
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, G. de Bergues and A.-L. During, Agents)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision C(2009) 2003 final of 28 January 2009 on the contingency plans in the fruit and vegetable sector implemented by France, in so far as it refers to the part of the measures taken under the contingency plans which was financed by sectoral contributions;

               —

               In the alternative, were the Court to find that application for partial annulment inadmissible, annul Decision C(2009) 2003 final in its entirety;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant seeks annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2009) 203 final (1) of 28 January 2009, by which the Commission declared incompatible with the common market State aids granted by the French Republic to producers of fruit and vegetables under the ‘contingency plans’ aimed at facilitating the marketing of agricultural products harvested in France.
   The applicant seeks annulment of the contested decision, to the extent that the Commission found that the measures taken in favour of the producers of fruit and vegetables constituted State aid, whereas those measures were in part financed by voluntary contributions from the producers which do not, according to the applicant, amount to State resources or resources attributable to the State.
   In support of its action, the applicant relies on two pleas based on:

               —

               breach of the obligation to state reasons, to the extent that the Commission did not justify the extension of the finding of State aid to measures financed by voluntary contributions from the producers in the sector concerned;

               —

               an error of law, since the Commission regarded as State aid measures financed by private resources paid voluntarily and without State intervention. Those measures cannot be regarded as advantages granted through State resources.

      (1)  That is the number stated in the contested decision, whereas the applicant consistently refers to the number C(2009) 2003 final.


title: Case C-64/09: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 April 2010 — European Commission v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2000/53/EC — Articles 5(3) and (4), 6(3) and 7(1) — Defective transposition)

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/9

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 April 2010 — European Commission v French Republic
   (Case C-64/09) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2000/53/EC - Articles 5(3) and (4), 6(3) and 7(1) - Defective transposition)
   2010/C 148/14
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Oliver and J.-B. Laignelot, Agents)

      Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and A. Adam, Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt all the laws and regulations necessary to ensure the complete and correct implementation of Article 2(13), Article 4(2)(a), Article 5(3) and (4), Article 6(3), Article 7(1) and Article 8(3) of Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of life vehicles (OJ 2000 L 269, p. 34) — Definitions of ‘dismantling information’ for out-of use vehicles and ‘stripping’ during their treatment — Obligation on vehicle manufacturers and component producers to provide dismantling information, in the form of manuals or by means of electronic media, for each type of new vehicle put on the market

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws and regulations necessary to ensure the correct and complete transposition of Article 2.13, Article 4(2)(a), Article 5(3) and (4), in so far as, for the latter paragraph, demolishers which have accepted to take back an end-of-life vehicle for destruction are excluded from the system of compensation for costs of treatment, Article 7(1) and Article 8(3) of Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of-life vehicles, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission and the French Republic to bear their own respective costs.

      (1)  OJ C 90, 18.4.2009.


9.12.2000             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 355/19
       Removal from the register of Case C-139/99 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-445/99 (1)
                       (2000/C 355/38)                                                     (2000/C 355/41)
By order of 13 July 2000 the President of the Sixth Chamber         By order of 1 August 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has             of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
ordered the removal from the register of Case C-139/99:             the register of Case C-445/99: Commission of the European
Commission of the European Communities v Ireland.                   Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.                                           (1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-22/00 (1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-420/99 (1)
                       (2000/C 355/39)                                                     (2000/C 355/42)
By order of 19 July 2000 the President of the Court of Justice      By order of 2 August 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from            of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-22/00: Commission of the European            the register of Case C-420/99 Commission of the European
Communities v Ireland.                                              Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.                                           (1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-437/99 (1)
                       (2000/C 355/40)                                     Removal from the register of Case C-42/00 (1)
By order of 28 July 2000 the President of the Court of Justice                             (2000/C 355/43)
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-437/99: Commission of the European           By order of 3 August 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
Communities v Ireland.                                              of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                    the register of Case C-42/00: Commission of the European
(1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.                                           Communities v Kingdom of Sweden.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.


title: Case C-104/08: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 June 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Oberösterreich (Austria)) — Marc André Kurt v Bürgermeister der Stadt Wels (Articles 92(1) and 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Fundamental freedoms — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Condition of diploma provided for by the national legislation for the issue of a permit to operate a driving school — Discrimination against own nationals as compared to nationals of other Member States)

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/13

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 June 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Oberösterreich (Austria)) — Marc André Kurt v Bürgermeister der Stadt Wels
   (Case C-104/08) (1)

   (Articles 92(1) and 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Fundamental freedoms - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Condition of diploma provided for by the national legislation for the issue of a permit to operate a driving school - Discrimination against own nationals as compared to nationals of other Member States)
   (2008/C 285/22)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Oberösterreich
   Parties

      Applicant: Marc André Kurt

      Defendant: Bürgermeister der Stadt Wels
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Oberösterreich — Interpretation of the fundamental principles of the EC and EU Treaties and the fundamental freedoms thereunder, as well as Articles 16 and 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — National legislation establishing a permit system for establishing, operating and managing a driving school and providing for a diploma requirement — Discrimination against own nationals as compared to nationals of other Member States who avail themselves of their rights under Community law and who do not necessarily have to satisfy the diploma requirement
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               Articles 23 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC do not preclude legislation of a Member State which, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, refuses to recognise professional qualifications acquired by a national of that Member State as equivalent to the possession of the diploma required by that legislation for the purposes of operating a driving school as an independent operator in that Member State.

               2.

               The Court of Justice of the European Communities clearly has no jurisdiction to answer the second and third questions referred by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Oberösterreich.

      (1)  OJ C 142, 7.6.2008.


title: Case T-95/09: Order of the General Court of 20 October 2011 — United Phosphorus v Commission (Plant protection products — Active substance napropamide — Non-inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC — Adoption of a subsequent directive — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               10.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 362/17

         Order of the General Court of 20 October 2011 — United Phosphorus v Commission
   (Case T-95/09) (1)

   (Plant protection products - Active substance napropamide - Non-inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC - Adoption of a subsequent directive - No need to adjudicate)
   2011/C 362/24
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: United Phosphorus Ltd (Warrington, Cheshire, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Parpala and N.B. Rasmussen, and subsequently by L. Parpala, acting as Agents, and by J. Stuyck, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2008/902/EC of 7 November 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of napropamide in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               Each party shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 102, 1.5.2009.


title: Case T-481/14: Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki v EIT (Public service contracts — Tender procedure — Supply of services for the development of a knowledge and information management platform — Software development services and maintenance of availability and efficiency of computer services — Refusal to rank the applicants in first place — Selection criteria — Award criteria — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest errors of assessment — Access to documents — Non-contractual liability)

text:
               31.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/37

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki v EIT
   (Case T-481/14) (1)

   ((Public service contracts - Tender procedure - Supply of services for the development of a knowledge and information management platform - Software development services and maintenance of availability and efficiency of computer services - Refusal to rank the applicants in first place - Selection criteria - Award criteria - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest errors of assessment - Access to documents - Non-contractual liability))
   (2016/C 402/41)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Ettelbrück, Luxembourg) and Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented initially by E. Siouti and M. Sfyri, and subsequently by M. Sfyri and A. Lymperopoulou, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Institute of Innovation and Technology (represented initially by M. Kern, B. Győri-Hartwig and P. Juanes Burgos, and subsequently by B. Győri-Hartwig and P. Juanes Burgos, acting as Agents, assisted by P. Wytinck and B. Hoorelbeke, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application, firstly, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the EIT’s decision of 14 April 2014 ranking the tender submitted by the applicants in the context of an invitation to tender relating to computer and related services in second place, and for annulment of the EIT’s letter of 25 April 2014 by which it refused to communicate the names of the members of the evaluation committee and, secondly, on the basis of Article 168 TFEU, for damages.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders European Dynamics Luxembourg SA and Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 351, 6.10.2014.


title: Case C-438/15: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 September 2016 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Taranto — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Davide Durante (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Cour of Justice — Identical questions referred — Articles 49 and 56 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Gambling — Restrictions — Overriding reasons relating to the public interest — Proportionality — Conditions taking part in a tendering procedure and evaluation of economic and financial capacity — Tenderer excluded for failure to produce testimonials of his economic and financial capacity given by two separate banking institutions)

text:
               5.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 454/10

      Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 September 2016 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Taranto — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Davide Durante
      (Case C-438/15) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Cour of Justice - Identical questions referred - Articles 49 and 56 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Gambling - Restrictions - Overriding reasons relating to the public interest - Proportionality - Conditions taking part in a tendering procedure and evaluation of economic and financial capacity - Tenderer excluded for failure to produce testimonials of his economic and financial capacity given by two separate banking institutions))
      (2016/C 454/21)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Tribunale di Taranto

         Criminal proceedings against

      Davide Durante

         Operative part of the order

      Articles 49 and 56 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, that requires operators desiring to respond to a call for tenders for the award of licences in the field of betting and gambling to produce evidence of their economic and financial capacity by means of declarations made by at least two banking establishments and does not allow that capacity to be demonstrated otherwise, provided that that provision is capable of satisfying the conditions of proportionality laid down by the Court’s case-law, which it is for the court making the reference to ascertain.

         (1)  OJ C 381, 16.11.2015.