title: Case T-134/99: Action brought on 2 June 1999 by Anna Posnanteck née Skrzypek v Commission of the European Communities

text:
28.8.1999              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 246/37
Action brought on 2 June 1999 by Anna Posnanteck née                      The applicant also considers that she is entitled to an orphan’s
  Skrzypek v Commission of the European Communities                       pension and alleges infringement of the third paragraph of
                                                                          Article 80 of the Staff Regulations and of Article 21 of Annex
                                                                          VII thereto. The applicant refers to the separate legal status of
                         (Case T-134/99)                                  the dependent child allowance and the orphan’s pension, the
                                                                          former being a supplementary allowance in the nature of
                         (1999/C 246/74)                                  remuneration and the latter a contributory benefit linked with
                                                                          the pension scheme allowing people not in receipt of the
                                                                          dependent child allowance at the time of the official’s death to
                                                                          obtain an orphan’s pension.
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          As regards a widow’s right to receive a dependent child
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 allowance, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 81 of
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on 2 June             the Staff Regulations.
1999 by Anna Posnanteck née Skrzypek, a widow, residing in
Brussels, represented by Eric Causin and Isabel Jiménez Rojas,
of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the chambers of Daniel Phong, 222A Avenue Gaston
Diderich.
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:             Action brought on 1 June 1999 by Taurus-Film GmbH &
                                                                          Co. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                                Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
— annul the decision of 9 March 1999 refusing to grant
     family allowances and an orphan’s pension with retroactive
     effect for the applicant herself and for her child Mira                                        (Case T-135/99)
     Posnanteck;
                                                                                (1999/C 246/75)
— declare, inter alia, that her child Mira is entitled to an
     orphan’s pension with effect from July 1998, together
     with default interest;                                                                   (Language of the case: German)
— order the defendant to pay the costs.                                   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                          Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
                                                                          Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 1
                                                                          June 1999 by Taurus-Film GmbH & Co., whose registered
Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support                    office is in Unterföhring (Germany), represented by Büsing,
                                                                          Muffelmann & Theye, Rechtsanwälte, Bremen, with an address
                                                                          for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch and
The applicant, the widow of a former official, contests the               Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe.
appointing authority’s refusal to grant her and her child family
allowances and an orphan’s pension. That decision is based on
Articles 67, 80 and 81 of the Staff Regulations, all of which             The applicant claims that the Court should:
include as a basic precondition for entitlement to orphan’s
benefits the existence of a child recognised as being dependent           1. Set aside the defendant’s decision of 19 March 1999 and
on the official, a condition not fulfilled in the present case.               order the defendant:
                                                                              (a) to permit registration of Community trade mark
In support of her claims, the applicant alleges, first, infringe-                  application No 404053 in respect of all provisions of
ment of Article 67 of the Staff Regulations and of Articles 1                      services of Classes 38, 41 and 42 for which registration
and 2(2) and (3) of Annex VII thereto. As regards the                              is still refused (as shown in the index in Annex K 2);
household allowance, she contends that Article 1(1)(a) of                          and
Annex VII to the Staff Regulations imposes no requirement
that a married official should live under the same roof as his                (b) refund the appeal fee to the applicant.
spouse, so that the applicant’s spouse was entitled to receive
the household allowance both during his employment and                    2. Order the defendant to pay the costs of the current dispute
when he received an invalidity pension. Since the latter was                  and the necessary expenses of the applicant for the
not paid to him in his lifetime, the appointing authority should              procedure before the Board of Appeal.
have decided to pay his entitlement to his beneficiaries. As
regards the dependent child allowance, the applicant claims
that it is contrary to the Staff Regulations for the appointing           Pleas in law and main arguments
authority to impose as a precondition for recognition of her
daughter as a dependent child of the official the requirement             Trade mark:                     Word ‘Cine Action’ — Appli-
that proof be produced that he actually maintained her. In her                                            cation No 404053
view, that provision leaves no margin of latitude: the legislature
wished that entitlement to be granted as of right, that is to say         Goods or services:              ‘Parts of the services in Classes 38,
automatically, when there are minor children.                                                             41, 42’


title: Case T-51/13: Action brought on 30 January 2013 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v EIB

text:
               23.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/26

         Action brought on 30 January 2013 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v EIB
   (Case T-51/13)
   2013/C 86/44
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Investment Bank

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               order the EIB to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 536 610,22, as compensation for the damage which the applicant suffered as a result of the loss of the opportunity to be awarded the framework agreement, with compensatory interest from 31/01/2008 until the date of delivery of the judgment in this case and with default interest from the date of delivery of the judgment in this dispute until full payment;·

               —

               order the EIB to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 150 000, as exemplary damages, with compensatory interest from 31 January 2008 until the date of delivery of the judgment in this case and with default interest from the date of delivery of the judgment in this dispute until full payment;

               —

               order the EIB to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By this action, the applicant claims, under the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU read together with Article 266 TFEU, before the General Court of the European Union compensation for the damage which it has suffered because of the unlawful conduct of the European Investment Bank (‘the EIB’).
   That damage arose when, as was ruled by the General Court in its judgment of 20 September 2011 in Case Τ-461/08 Evropaïki Dynamiki v EIB, the EIB unlawfully rejected the applicant’s tender in the call for tenders relating to the award of a framework agreement for the provision of services.
   In that context, the applicant claims, first, damages by way of compensation for the damage which the applicant suffered as a result of the loss of the opportunity to be awarded the framework agreement, as a means of restoration of the status quo ante, and, secondly, exemplary damages for the unlawful and improper conduct of the EIB towards the applicant.
   The applicant maintains that the conditions for establishing the EIB’s non-contractual liability, as set out in settled case-law, to enable it to be compensated are satisfied.


title: Case C-371/05: Action brought on  7 October 2005  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
               14.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 10/8

         Action brought on 7 October 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
   (Case C-371/05)
   (2006/C 10/17)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 7 October 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by X. Lewis and L. Visaggio, acting as Agents.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare that by virtue of the fact that the Comune di Mantova awarded, directly and without prior publication of the appropriate contract notice in the Official Journal of the European Communities, the contract for the management, maintenance and development of the in-house IT services to the company A.S.I. S.p.A., the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 92/50/EEC, in particular Articles 11 and 15(2) thereof;

               —

               Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               Following a complaint, the Commission became aware of the contract concluded on 2 December 1997, by which the Comune di Mantova (municipality of Mantova) awarded, directly and without prior publication of the appropriate contract notice, the contract for the management, maintenance and development of its in-house IT services to a company in which it holds an interest, Azienda Servizi Informativi (‘A.S.I.’) S.p.A. The award was for a period of 15 years, ending on 31 December 2012.

               2.

               The Commission takes the view that the award to the company A.S.I. S.p.A. of the contract for the Comune di Mantova's IT services constitutes a public service contract subject to the application of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts. (1) For that reason in was necessary in this case to follow the competition procedure in accordance with the provisions of that directive, in particular the publication of the appropriate contract notice in the Official Journal of the European Communities within the meaning of Article 11 and Article 15(2) of that directive.

               3.

               Moreover, according to the applicant, the Italian authorities did not provide sufficient information to allow it to be considered that, given the overall arrangement of the legal relationships existing between the Comune and the company which received the contract, as well as the activities of that company, the awarding of the contract in question here relates solely to in-house providing and is therefore outside the scope of application of the Community directives governing the award of public contracts.

      (1)  OJ L 209, p. 1.


title: Case C-578/08: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 March 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Rhimou Chakroun v Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken (Right to family reunification — Directive 2003/86/EC — Concept of recourse to the social assistance system — Concept of family reunification — Family formation)

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/13

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 March 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Rhimou Chakroun v Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken
   (Case C-578/08) (1)

   (Right to family reunification - Directive 2003/86/EC - Concept of ‘recourse to the social assistance system’ - Concept of ‘family reunification’ - Family formation)
   2010/C 113/17
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Rhimou Chakroun

      Defendant: Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Raad van State — Interpretation of Articles 2(d) and 7(1)(c) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (OJ 2003 L 251, p. 12) — Concepts of ‘recourse to the social assistance system’ and of ‘family reunification’.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The phrase ‘recourse to the social assistance system’ in Article 7(1)(c) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from adopting rules in respect of family reunification which result in such reunification being refused to a sponsor who has proved that he has stable and regular resources which are sufficient to maintain himself and the members of his family, but who, given the level of his resources, will nevertheless be entitled to claim special assistance in order to meet exceptional, individually determined, essential living costs, tax refunds granted by local authorities on the basis of his income, or income-support measures in the context of local-authority minimum-income policies (‘minimabeleid’)

               2.

               Directive 2003/86, in particular Article 2(d) thereof, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, in applying the income requirement set out in Article 7(1)(c) of Directive 2003/86, draws a distinction according to whether the family relationship arose before or after the sponsor entered the territory of the host Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.


title: Case T-180/08 P: Order of the Court of First Instance of 10 November 2009 — Tiralongo v Commission (Appeal — Staff cases — Temporary staff — Non-extension of a fixed-term contract — Action for damages — Cause of the damage — Obligation to state reasons on the part of the Civil Service Tribunal)

text:
               16.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 11/27

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 10 November 2009 — Tiralongo v Commission
   (Case T-180/08 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Staff cases - Temporary staff - Non-extension of a fixed-term contract - Action for damages - Cause of the damage - Obligation to state reasons on the part of the Civil Service Tribunal)
   2010/C 11/53
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Giuseppe Tiralongo (Ladispoli, Italy) (represented by: F. Sciaudone, R. Sciaudone and S. Frazzani, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, acting as Agents, assisted by S. Corongiu, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 6 March 2008 in Case F-55/07 Tiralongo v Commission (not yet published in the ECR), seeking the annulment of that order

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Mr Giuseppe Tiralongo to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 5.7.2008.


title: Case T-476/14: Action brought on 26 June 2014  — Poal Investments XXI and Others v Commission

text:
               11.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/49

         Action brought on 26 June 2014 — Poal Investments XXI and Others v Commission
   (Case T-476/14)
   2014/C 261/77
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Poal Investments XXI, SL (Madrid, Spain); Poal Investments XXII, SL (Madrid); Naviera Cabo Vilaboa C-1658, AIE (Madrid); and Naviera Cabo Domaio C-1659, AIE (Madrid) (represented by: J.L. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero, and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to that decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as the beneficiaries of the alleged aid and as the sole addressees of the order for recovery;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid;

               —

               annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of private contracts between the investors and other entities; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-700/13 Bankia v Commission.


title: Case C-158/09: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 May 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2003/88/EC — Organisation of working time — Non-civilian personnel in public authorities — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/12

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 May 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-158/09) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2003/88/EC - Organisation of working time - Non-civilian personnel in public authorities - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   2010/C 179/19
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: I. Martinez del Peral Cagigal and M. van Beek, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: B. Plaza Cruz, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 1(3) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9) and Article 18(a) of Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 1993 L 307, p. 18) maintained by Article 27(1) of Directive 2003/88, read in conjunction with Annex I, Part B, of the same directive — Non-civilian personnel in public authorities

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, in respect of non-civilian personnel in public authorities, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1(3) of that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 180 of 1.8.2009.


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 25 November 1999 in Case T-222/99 R: Jean-Claude Martinez and Charles de Gaulle v European Parliament (Application for the adoption of interim measures — Measure of the Parliament interpreting a provision in its own Rules of Procedure — Political group — Admissibility — Prima facie case — Urgency — Balancing of interests)

text:
22.1.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 20/21
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               Procedure of the European Parliament (OJ 1999 L 202, p. 1)
                                                                          — the President of the Court of First Instance has made an
                        of 8 October 1999                                 order on 25 November 1999, the operative part of which is as
                                                                          follows:
   in Case T-89/99: Oliver Valk v European Parliament (1)
                                                                          1. Implementation of the measure of the European Parliament of
(Official — Period within which an action must be brought                     14 September 1999, by which the Parliament adopted the
                  — Manifest inadmissibility)                                 interpretation of Rule 29 of its Rules of Procedure proposed by
                                                                              the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, is suspended;
                          (2000/C 20/42)
                                                                          2. The costs are reserved.
                   (Language of the case: German)
In Case T-89/99: Oliver Valk, resident in Berlin, represented
by Joachim Kayser, Rechtsanwalt, Körnerstrasse 5, 10785
Berlin, v European Parliament (Agents: Hans Krück and Evelyn
Waldherr) — application for annulment of the decision of the
selection board in Competition PE/86/A refusing to admit the
applicant to the written tests in that competition and                    Action brought on 1 October 1999 by British Airways
requesting that the applicant be allowed to take part in that             PLC against the Commission of the European Communi-
competition — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber),                                               ties
composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, J. Pirrung and M. Vilaras;
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 8 October
1999, the operative part of which is as follows:                                                   (Case T-219/99)
1. The action is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible;
                                                                                (2000/C 20/44)
2. Each party shall bear its own costs.
(1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.                                                                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 1 October 1999 by British Airways
                                                                          PLC, represented by William Wood QC and Helen Davies, of
                                                                          Brick Court Chambers, London, and William Allan and Oliver
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                              Black, of Linklaters, Solicitors, London, with an address for
                            INSTANCE                                      service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Maître Marc Loesch,
                                                                          11 Rue Goethe, Luxembourg.
                      of 25 November 1999
in Case T-222/99 R: Jean-Claude Martinez and Charles de                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
                 Gaulle v European Parliament
                                                                          — annul the contested decision in its entirety;
(Application for the adoption of interim measures —
Measure of the Parliament interpreting a provision in its                 — order the Commission to pay the costs.
own Rules of Procedure — Political group — Admissibility
  — Prima facie case — Urgency — Balancing of interests)
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
                          (2000/C 20/43)
                                                                          The primary relief sought is the annulment of the Com-
                    (Language of the case: French)                        mission’s Decision declaring that since 1992 the applicant
                                                                          (BA) has infringed Article 82 EC by operating systems of
In Case T-222/99 R: Jean-Claude Martinez, residing in Montpel-            commission and other incentives with the travel agents from
lier (France), and Charles de Gaulle, residing in Paris, represent-       whom it purchases air travel agency services in the United
ed by François Wagner, of the Nice Bar, 2 Rue de la                       Kingdom, systems which, by rewarding loyalty from the travel
Poissonnerie, Nice (France), v European Parliament (Agents:               agents and by discriminating between travel agents, have the
Gregorio Garzón Clariana, Johann Schoo and Hans Krück) —                 object and effect of excluding BA’s competitors from the UK
application for suspension of implementation of the decision              air transport market. Article 2 of the contested Decision
of the European Parliament dated 14 September 1999 con-                   imposed on BA a fine of £ 6,8 million for the alleged
cerning the interpretation of Rule 29(1) of the Rules of                  infringements.


title: Case C-622/13 P: Appeal brought on 27 November 2013 by Castel Frères SAS against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 13 September 2013 in Case T-320/10: Fürstlich Castell’sches Domänenamt Albrecht Fürst zu Castell-Castell v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               25.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/16

         Appeal brought on 27 November 2013 by Castel Frères SAS against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 13 September 2013 in Case T-320/10: Fürstlich Castell’sches Domänenamt Albrecht Fürst zu Castell-Castell v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-622/13 P)
   2014/C 24/29
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Castel Frères SAS (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl, H. Hartwig, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Fürstlich Castell’sches Domänenamt Albrecht Fürst zu Castell-Castell

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2013 in Case T-320/10,

               —

               dismiss the application for annulment brought by Fürstlich Castell’sches Domänenamt Albrecht Fürst zu Castell-Castell against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 May 2010 in Case R 962/2009-2,

               —

               order the Office and the Other Party to bear the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and this Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Appellant claims that the General Court committed legal error in rejecting the Appellant's claim that the application to the General Court should have been dismissed as inadmissible because of the ‘abus de droit’ committed by the Other Party. The Appellant's claim is based on a distortion of the evidence. The claim is also based on a misinterpretation of the role of the abuse of rights in proceedings before European Union institutions. The claim is also based on a failure to give reasons for the decision because the General Court failed to give any reasons for the dismissal of the Appellant's claim.
   The Appellant further claims that the General Court violated Article 7 (1) (c) CTMR (1) in that it applied erroneous legal criteria in determining that the Appellant's mark was improperly registered.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark
   OJ L 78, p. 1


title: Case C-406/06: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 February 2007 — Landtag Schleswig-Holstein v Commission of the European Communities (Action of annulment — Court of Justice having no jurisdiction — Referral to Court of First Instance)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/15

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 February 2007 — Landtag Schleswig-Holstein v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-406/06) (1)

   (Action of annulment - Court of Justice having no jurisdiction - Referral to Court of First Instance)
   (2007/C 95/25)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Landtag Schleswig-Holstein (represented by: S. Laskowski and J. Caspar, acting as agents)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Re:
   Annulment of Commission decisions of 10 March 2006 and 23 June 2006 refusing to grant the applicant access to the document SEC(2005) 420, of 22 March 2005, containing a legal analysis relating to a draft framework decision, under discussion in the Council, on the retention of data processed and stored in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communication services or data transmitted on public communications networks, for the purposes of prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of crime and criminal offences, including terrorism (Council document 8958/04 CRIMORG 36 TELECOM 82)
   Operative part of the order

               (1)

               Case C-406/06 Landtag Schleswig-Holstein v Commission is referred to the Court of First Instance of the European Communities.

               (2)

               The costs are reserved.

      (1)  OJ C 294, 2.12.2006, p. 33.


title: Judgment of the Court of 2 October 2003 in Case C-148/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État): Carlos Garcia Avello v État Belge (Citizenship of the European Union — Handing down of surnames — Children of nationals of Member States — Dual nationality)

text:
C 275/20                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                            15.11.2003
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      origin of the plants concerned. The amendments which Commission
                                                                            Directive 98/2/EC of 8 January 1998 made to items 16.2 and
                                                                            16.3 do not affect that interpretation. The phytosanitary certificate
                     of 30 September 2003                                   required in order to bring those plants into the Community must,
                                                                            therefore, be issued in their country of origin by, or under the
in Case C-140/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling                        supervision of, the competent authorities of that country.
from the House of Lords): Regina on the application of
S.P. Anastasiou (Pissouri) Ltd and Others v Minister for
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, interveners: Cypfruvex                     (1) OJ C 144 of 15.6.2002.
(UK) Ltd and Cypfruvex Fruit and Vegetable (Cypfruvex)
                         Enterprises Ltd (1)
(Approximation of laws — Protection of plant health —
Directive 77/93/EEC — Import into the Community of
plants originating in non-member countries and subject to                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
special requirements — Special requirements which cannot
be fulfilled at places other than that of origin — Affixing of
an appropriate origin mark to plant packaging — Official                                             of 2 October 2003
statement that plants originate in an area known to be free
              from the relevant harmful organism)                           in Case C-148/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                              the Conseil d’État): Carlos Garcia Avello v État Belge (1)
                          (2003/C 275/34)
                                                                            (Citizenship of the European Union — Handing down of
                                                                            surnames — Children of nationals of Member States —
                   (Language of the case: English)                                                    Dual nationality)
                                                                                (2003/C 275/35)
In Case C-140/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the House of Lords (United Kingdom) for a preliminary                                      (Language of the case: French)
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Regina on the application of S.P. Anastasiou (Pissouri) Ltd and             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Others and Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food,                                        in the European Court Reports)
interveners: Cypfruvex (UK) Ltd and Cypfruvex Fruit and
Vegetable (Cypfruvex) Enterprises Ltd, on the interpretation of
Council Directive 77/93/EEC of 21 December 1976 on
protective measures against the introduction into the Com-                  In Case C-148/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
munity of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and                 by the Conseil d’État (Belgium) for a preliminary ruling in the
against their spread within the Community (OJ 1977 L 26,                    proceedings pending before that court between Carlos Garcia
p. 20), as amended, inter alia, by Council Directive 91/683/                Avello and État Belge, on the interpretation of Articles 17 EC
EEC of 19 December 1991 (OJ 1991 L 376, p. 29) and                          and 18 EC, the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias,
Commission Directive 92/103/EEC of 1 December 1992 (OJ                      President, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen and C.W.A. Timmermans
1992 L 363, p. 1), and as subsequently amended, inter alia, by              (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola,
Commission Directive 98/2/EC of 8 January 1998 (OJ 1998                     P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr,
L 15, p. 34), the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez                        J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur) and A. Rosas, Judges;
Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), M. Wathelet,            F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Adminis-
R. Schintgen and C.W.A. Timmermans (Presidents of Cham-                     trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 2 October
bers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann,                   2003, in which it has ruled:
V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha
Rodrigues and A. Rosas, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate
General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,            Articles 12 EC and 17 EC must be construed as precluding, in
has given a judgment on 30 September 2003, in which it has                  circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings, the
ruled:                                                                      administrative authority of a Member State from refusing to grant
                                                                            an application for a change of surname made on behalf of minor
                                                                            children resident in that State and having dual nationality of that
On a proper interpretation of Council Directive 77/93/EEC of                State and of another Member State, in the case where the purpose of
21 December 1976 on protective measures against the introduction            that application is to enable those children to bear the surname to
into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products         which they are entitled according to the law and tradition of the
and against their spread within the Community, as amended, inter            second Member State.
alia, by Council Directive 91/683/EEC of 19 December 1991 and
Commission Directive 92/103/EEC of 1 December 1992, the
special requirement that an appropriate origin mark be affixed to the       (1) OJ C 144 of 15.6.2002.
plants’ packaging, laid down in item 16.1 of Annex IV, Part A,
Section I, to that directive, can be fulfilled only in the country of


               18.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 455/15

         Action brought on 22 October 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
   (Case E-21/14)
   (2014/C 455/10)
   An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 22 October 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Markus Schneider and Clémence Perrin, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Rue Belliard 35, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               Declare that by failing to adopt, and/or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority forthwith of, the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 4 of Chapter IV of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the indication by labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by energy-related products), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement.

               2.

               Order Iceland to bear the costs of these proceedings.

      Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               The application addresses Iceland’s failure to comply, no later than on 18 February 2014, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 18 December 2013 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the indication by labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by energy-related products (‘the Act’), as referred to at point 4 of Chapter IV of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto.

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16 of the Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to adopt, and/or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority of, the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) 27 February 2002 in Case C-46/01: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Waste management — Directive 96/59/EC — Disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls)

text:
C 109/14                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           4.5.2002
and amending Directives 79/267/EEC and 90/619/EEC (third                    in Articles 11 and 4(1) of Council Directive 96/59/EC of
life assurance Directive) (OJ 1992 L 360, p. 1) the Court (Sixth            16 September 1996 on the disposal of polychlorinated
Chamber), composed of: N. Colneric, President of the Second                 biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT) (OJ 1996
Chamber, acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber,                     L 243, p. 31), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen, V. Skouris and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues               obligations under those provisions, the Court (Fourth Chamb-
(Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,             er), composed of: S. von Bahr, President of the Chamber,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment            D.A.O. Edward and C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), Judges;
on 5 March 2002, in which it has ruled:                                     P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
                                                                            judgment on 27 February 2002, in which it:
Article 31(3) of Council Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November
                                                                            1.    Declares that, by failing to draw up and communicate to the
1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities, by 16 September
provisions relating to direct life assurance and amending Directives
                                                                                1999 at the latest, the summaries of inventories provided for
79/267/EEC and 90/619/EEC (third life assurance Directive)
                                                                                in Article 4(1) of Council Directive 96/59/EC of 16 September
precludes national legislation which provides that a life-assurance
                                                                                1996 on the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polych-
proposal, or in the absence of a proposal, a life-assurance policy must
                                                                                lorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT) and the plans and outlines
inform the policy-holder that cancellation, reduction or surrender of
                                                                                provided for in Article 11 of the same directive, the Italian
an existing life-assurance contract for the purpose of subscribing to
                                                                                Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those
another life-assurance policy is generally detrimental to the policy-
                                                                                provisions.
holder.
                                                                            2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 108 of 7.4.2001.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Second Chamber)
                          (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                                27 February 2002
                          27 February 2002
                                                                            in Case C-140/01: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Kingdom of Belgium (1)
in Case C-46/01: Commission of the European Communi-
                      ties v Italian Republic (1)
                                                                            (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                            Directive 98/18/EC — Transport by sea — Safety rules and
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                                        standards for passenger ships)
Waste management — Directive 96/59/EC — Disposal of
  polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls)
                                                                                (2002/C 109/23)
                           (2002/C 109/22)                                                       (Language of the case: French)
                     (Language of the case: Italian)                        (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-140/01, Commission of the European Communities
                                                                            (Agent: B. Mongin) v Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: A. Snoecx):
                                                                            Application for a declaration that, by failing to notify the
In Case C-46/01, Commission of the European Communities                     Commission of the laws, regulations and administrative pro-
(agents: H. Støvlbaek and R. Amorosi) v Italian Republic                    visions necessary to comply with Council Directive 98/18/EC
(agent: U. Leanza, assisted by M. Fiorilli): Application for a              of 17 March 1998 on safety rules and standards for passenger
declaration that, by failing to draw up and communicate to                  ships (OJ 1998 L 144, p. 1), or to adopt the measures necessary
the Commission by 16 September 1999 the appropriate                         to comply therewith, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to
plans, outlines and summaries of inventories provided for                   fulfil its obligations under that directive and under the EC


title: Case T-556/08: Judgment of the General Court of 25 March 2015 — Slovenská pošta v Commission (Competition — Abuse of dominant position — Slovakian traditional mail and hybrid mail services markets — Decision finding an infringement of Article 86(1) EC in conjunction with Article 82 EC — Exclusive right to distribute hybrid mail — Principle of sound administration — Obligation to state reasons — Right to be heard — Definition of the market — Extension of a monopoly — Article 86(2) EC — Legal certainty — Legitimate expectations)

text:
               11.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 25 March 2015 — Slovenská pošta v Commission
   (Case T-556/08) (1)

   ((Competition - Abuse of dominant position - Slovakian traditional mail and hybrid mail services markets - Decision finding an infringement of Article 86(1) EC in conjunction with Article 82 EC - Exclusive right to distribute hybrid mail - Principle of sound administration - Obligation to state reasons - Right to be heard - Definition of the market - Extension of a monopoly - Article 86(2) EC - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectations))
   (2015/C 155/22)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Slovenská pošta a.s. (Banská Bystrica, Slovakia) (represented initially by O. Brouwer, C. Schillemans and M. Knapen, then by O. Brouwer and P. Schepens and, lastly, by O. Brouwer and A. Pliego Selie, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: R. Sauer, A. Tokár and A. Antoniadis, and subsequently by R. Sauer, A. Tokár and C. Vollrath, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Slovak Republic (represented by: B. Ricziová, Agent)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Cromwell a.s. (Bratislava, Slovakia); Slovak Mail Services a.s. (Bratislava); Prvá Doručovacia a.s. (Bratislava) (represented initially by M. Maier and P. Werner, and subsequently by P. Werner, lawyers); and ID Marketing Slovensko s.r.o., formerly TNT Post Slovensko s.r.o. (Bratislava) (represented initially by J. Ellison, Solicitor, and T. Rybár, lawyer, and subsequently by T. Rybár and I. Pecník, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 5912 final of 7 October 2008 on the Slovakian postal legislation relating to hybrid mail services (Case COMP/39.562 — Slovakian postal law).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders Slovenská pošta a.s. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, Cromwell a.s., Slovak Mail Services a.s., Prvá Doručovacia a.s. and ID Marketing Slovensko s.r.o.;

               3)

               Orders the Slovak Republic to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.


21.4.2001             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 118/29
       Removal from the register of Case C-220/00 (1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-248/00 (1)
                       (2001/C 118/76)                                                       (2001/C 118/79)
By order of 14 December 2000 the President of the Court of            By order of 15 January 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-220/00: Commission of the                 from the register of Case C-248/00: Commission of the
European Communities v Portugal.                                      European Communities v France.
(1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.                                            (1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-275/99 (1)
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-411/99 (1)
                       (2001/C 118/77)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/80)
By order of 19 December 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           By order of 16 January 2001 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-275/99: (reference for a preliminary      Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
ruling from Tribunal Administratif de Strasbourg): Société            from the register of Case C-411/99: Commission of the
Adidas Sarragan France v Directeur des Services Fiscaux du            European Communities v Austria.
Bas-Rhin.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 366 of 18.12.1999.
(1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-54/00 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-236/00 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/81)
                       (2001/C 118/78)
                                                                      By order of 16 January 2001 the President of the Court of
By order of 9 January 2001 the President of the Court of              Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           from the register of Case C-54/00: Commission of the
from the register of Case C-236/00: Commission of the                 European Communities v Italy.
European Communities v Luxembourg.
(1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.                                            (1) OJ C 211 of 22.7.2000.


title: Case C-331/00: Action brought on 11 September 2000 by the Hellenic Republic against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
9.12.2000              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 355/7
Action brought on 11 September 2000 by the Hellenic                    With regard to arable crops and livestock premiums, it
Republic against the Commission of the European Com-                   contends (sixth ground for annulment) that the Commission
                             munities                                  has exceeded the limits of its discretion in imposing the lump-
                                                                       sum deductions and that the principle of proportionality has
                                                                       been infringed.
                        (Case C-331/00)
                                                                       With regard to the 2 % deduction from the associations, it
                        (2000/C 355/12)                                contends (seventh ground for annulment) that the legislation
                                                                       has been misinterpreted and that the facts have been wrongly
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-              assessed.
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 11 September 2000 by the Hellenic Republic,             Finally, with regard to late payments, it contends (eighth
represented by Vasilios Kontolaimos, Legal Adviser in the State        ground for annulment) that Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation
Legal Service, Ioannis-Konstantinos Khalkias, Member of that           No 296/96 and Article 8 of Regulation No 729/70 have been
Service, and Khrisoula Tsiavou, Legal Agent of that Service,           misinterpreted.
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Greek
Embassy, 117 Val Sainte-Croix.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul or, in the alternative, amend Commission Decision
      C(2000) 1847 Final of 5 July 2000 excluding from
      Community financing certain expenditure incurred by              Action brought on 11 September 2000 by the Kingdom
      the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the             of Belgium against Commission of the European Com-
      European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund                                             munities
      (EAGGF), which has been published in the Official Journal
      of the European Communities as Decision No 2000/449/EC                                    (Case C-332/00)
      (OJ 2000 L 180, p. 49).
                                                                                (2000/C 355/13)
Grounds for annulment and main arguments
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                       ties was brought before the Court of Justice on 11 September
As regards arable crops and shortcomings of the integrated             2000 by the Kingdom of Belgium, represented by Anni
administration and control system (IACS), the Hellenic Repub-          Snoecx, Adviser in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, External
lic contends (first ground for annulment) that the facts               Trade and International Cooperation, acting as Agent, with an
have been assessed incorrectly and that the principle of               address for service in Luxembourg at the Belgian Embassy, 4
proportionality has been infringed. So far as concerns, in             Rue des Girondins.
particular, the alphanumeric identification system, Article 4 of
Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 has been misinterpreted.                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
With regard to arable crops and poor quality of checks and             1.    Declare the application admissible and well founded;
supervision, the Hellenic Republic submits (second ground for
annulment) that the facts have been assessed incorrectly.              2.    Annul the European Commission decision of 5 July 2000
                                                                             amending Decision 1999/187/EC on the clearance of the
                                                                             accounts presented by the Member States in respect of
With regard to livestock premiums and, more specifically,                    expenditure for 1995 (1) of the Guarantee Section of the
failure to implement and complete the IACS, it contends (third               European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
ground for annulment) that the correction of 10 % is mistaken                (EAGGF), to the extent to which it excludes from
and unjustified.                                                             Community financing expenditure of BEF 50 763 827
                                                                             incurred by the Kingdom of Belgium in connection with
With regard to late payments (Regulation (EC) No 1357/96),                   aid relating to the sale at reduced price of butter and the
it submits (fourth ground for annulment) that the financial                  grant of aid for concentrated butter and cream intended
correction proposed is unjustified and that the principle of                 for the manufacture of pastry products, ice-cream and
proportionality has been infringed.                                          other food products, and partially annul the European
                                                                             Commission decision of 5 July 2000 excluding from
                                                                             Community financing certain expenditure incurred by
With regard to late payment (Regulation (EC) No 1357/96), it                 the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the
submits (fifth ground for annulment) that the second para-                   European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund for
graph of Article 7 of Regulation No 1357/96 has been                         the financial years 1996 and 1997, in so far as it excludes
misinterpreted and that the facts have been assessed incor-                  from Community financing expenditure in the sum of
rectly.                                                                      EUR 1 602 256,45 and EUR 31 883,22 incurred by the


title: Case T-642/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Cieśla v Parliament

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/56

         Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Cieśla v Parliament
   (Case T-642/15)
   (2016/C 048/64)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Wojciech Cieśla (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul decision A(2015)8463 C of the European Parliament of 14 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

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

               2.

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

               3.

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

               4.

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

               5.

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

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

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


title: Case C-270/00: Action brought on 3 July 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

text:
26.8.2000             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 247/27
Action brought on 3 July 2000 by the Commission of the                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Judicial
  European Communities against the Republic of Austria                 da Comarca de Ponta Delgada, by judgment of that court
                                                                       of 4 June 2000, in the case of RAR — Refinarias de Açúcar
                                                                       Reunidas, SA v SINAGA — Sociedade de Indústrias
                         (Case C-270/00)                                                         Açoreanas, SA
                         (2000/C 247/41)
                                                                                (Case C-282/00)
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 3 July
2000, by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Dr Götz zur Hausen, Legal Advisor to the                                         (2000/C 247/42)
European Commission with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, a member of
the Legal Service of the European Commission, Wagner Centre
C 254, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal Judicial
                                                                       da Comarca de Ponta Delgada of 11 July 2000, which
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       was received at the Court Registry on 17 July 2000, for a
                                                                       preliminary ruling in the case of RAR — Refinarias de Açucar
1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the provisions necessary       Reunidas, SA v SINAGA — Sociedade de Indústrias Açoreanas,
      to comply with Articles 5, 16 and 17 of Council Directive        SA, on the following questions:
      86/609/EEC (1) of 24 November 1986 on the approxi-
      mation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions
      of the Member States regarding the protection of animals
                                                                       1.   Does the second paragraph of Article 8 of Council
      used for experimental and other scientific purposes, the
                                                                            Regulation (EEC) No 1600/92 of 15 June 1992 apply to
      Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                            (i) sugar processed from raw sugar (sugar properly
      under that directive;
                                                                            speaking, whether it comes from locally-grown or
                                                                            imported raw sugarbeet) (ii) or only to sugar added to
2.    order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.                       products which include it (such as cakes, soft drinks etc)?
                                                                            (essentially, what is sought is the substance of the
                                                                            expression ‘products ... are processed’ contained in the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                             legislation).
As is clear from Articles 2 and 166 of the Act of Accession,           2.   Are the sales referred to in 3 (below) covered by the
the obligation under Article 25 of Directive 86/609/EEC took                concepts ‘traditional trade flows’, ‘traditional exports’ and
effect for Austria upon Austria’s accession on 1 January 1995.              ‘traditional ... shipments’ to ‘the rest of the Community’,
Such legislative measures as Austria has adopted since then                 contained in Article 3(3) and the second paragraph of
notwithstanding, the following provisions have not yet been                 Article 8 of the abovementioned regulation?
properly transposed into national law:
—     Article 5 (provisions relating to the general care and           3.   Irrespective of the answer to the preceding questions,
      accommodation of experimental animals). The provisions                does the legal framework in force, from September 1998
      of the Tierversuchsgesetz referred to by Austria only                 to date, allow Sinaga to sell in mainland Portugal sugar
      relate to user establishments but not to breeding and                 produced by it from sugarbeet harvested in the Azores
      supplying establishments and only to the approval and                 and for the production of which it obtains Community
      registration of user establishments but not to their day-             aid under the Poseima programme?
      to-day functioning;
—     Article 16 (identification by name of persons responsible        4.   Again irrespective of the answers to the preceding
      for breeding and supplying establishments);                           questions, does the legal framework in force, from
                                                                            September 1998 to date, allow Sinaga to sell in mainland
—     Article 17 (breeding and supplying establishments’ obli-              Portugal sugar produced by it from imported raw sugar-
      gation to keep records).                                              beet which is exempt from levies under the Poseima
                                                                            programme?
(1) OJ 1986 L 358, p. 1.


title: Case C-59/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’Appel de Nancy (France) lodged on 9 February 2011 — Association Kokopelli v Graines Baumaux SAS

text:
               16.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 120/5

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’Appel de Nancy (France) lodged on 9 February 2011 — Association Kokopelli v Graines Baumaux SAS
   (Case C-59/11)
   2011/C 120/08
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour d’Appel de Nancy

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Association Kokopelli

      Defendant: Graines Baumaux SAS

      Question referred

   Are Council Directives 98/95/EC (1), 2002/53/EC (2) and 2002/55/EC (3) and Commission Directive 2009/145 (4) valid in the light of the following fundamental rights and principles of the European Union, namely, freedom to pursue an economic activity, proportionality, equal treatment or non-discrimination and the free movement of goods, and also in the light of the commitments arising from the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, particularly in so far as they impose restrictions on the production and marketing of old seed and plants?

      (1)  Council Directive 98/95/EC of 14 December 1998 amending, in respect of the consolidation of the internal market, genetically modified plant varieties and plant genetic resources, Directives 66/400/EEC, 66/401/EEC, 66/402/EEC, 66/403/EEC, 69/208/EEC, 70/457/EEC and 70/458/EEC on the marketing of beet seed, fodder plant seed, cereal seed, seed potatoes, seed of oil and fibre plants and vegetable seed and on the common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species (OJ 1999 L 25, p.1).

      (2)  Council Directive 2002/53/EC of 13 June 2002 on the common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species (OJ 2002 L 193, p. 1).

      (3)  Council Directive 2002/55/EC of 13 June 2002 on the marketing of vegetable seed (OJ 2002 L 193, p. 33).

      (4)  Commission Directive 2009/145/EC of 26 November 2009 providing for certain derogations, for acceptance of vegetable landraces and varieties which have been traditionally grown in particular localities and regions and are threatened by genetic erosion and of vegetable varieties with no intrinsic value for commercial crop production but developed for growing under particular conditions and for marketing of seed of those landraces and varieties (OJ 1999 L 312, p. 44).


title: Case F-73/13: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 17 March 2015 — AX v ECB (Civil service — ECB staff — Disciplinary proceedings — Disciplinary measure — Dismissal — Rights of the defence — Access to the disciplinary file — Access to information and documents on other divisions — Reasonable time — Lawfulness of the composition of the Disciplinary Committee — Advisory role of the Disciplinary Committee — Stricter disciplinary measure than that recommended — Obligation to state reasons — Management of a division — Manifest error of assessment — Proportionality of the disciplinary measure — Extenuating circumstances — Aggravating circumstances — Objection of illegality)

text:
               4.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 146/43

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 17 March 2015 — AX v ECB
   (Case F-73/13) (1)

   ((Civil service - ECB staff - Disciplinary proceedings - Disciplinary measure - Dismissal - Rights of the defence - Access to the disciplinary file - Access to information and documents on other divisions - Reasonable time - Lawfulness of the composition of the Disciplinary Committee - Advisory role of the Disciplinary Committee - Stricter disciplinary measure than that recommended - Obligation to state reasons - Management of a division - Manifest error of assessment - Proportionality of the disciplinary measure - Extenuating circumstances - Aggravating circumstances - Objection of illegality))
   (2015/C 146/57)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: AX (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: M. López Torres and E. Carlini, acting as Agents, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application to annul the decision to dismiss the applicant following disciplinary proceedings instigated for serious misconduct and for compensation in respect of the non-material harm allegedly suffered.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Declares that AX is to bear his own costs and orders him to pay the costs incurred by the European Central Bank.

      (1)  OJ C 274, 21.9.2013, p. 33.


title: Case C-486/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães (Portugal) lodged on 22 September 2011 — Jonathan Rodrigues Esteves v Seguros Allianz Portugal SA

text:
               3.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães (Portugal) lodged on 22 September 2011 — Jonathan Rodrigues Esteves v Seguros Allianz Portugal SA
   (Case C-486/11)
   2011/C 355/16
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Jonathan Rodrigues Esteves

      Defendant: Seguros Allianz Portugal SA

      Questions referred

               (a)

               Must Article 1a of the Third Motor Insurance Directive (90/232/EEC) (1) — inserted by Article 4 of the Fifth Motor Insurance Directive (2005/14/EC) (2) — on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles be interpreted as precluding national law (such as that stemming from Articles 505 and 570 of the Portuguese Civil Code) which provides that that compulsory insurance against such liability does not cover liability for the personal and material damage caused to a cyclist in a road-traffic accident between a motor vehicle and a bicycle, even though the accident is due solely to the cyclist’s conduct?

               (b)

               If the answer is in the affirmative — that is, such an exclusion of compensation is contrary to Community law — is national legislation that limits or reduces such compensation, having regard to the fault of the cyclist, on the one hand, and the risk posed by the motor vehicle, on the other, in causing the accident, compatible with the aforementioned Community directives?

      (1)  OJ 1990 L 129, p. 33.

      (2)  OJ 2005 L 149, p. 14.


title: Case T-326/13: Action brought on 18 June 2013 — Commission v Thales développement et coopération

text:
               12.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 298/7

         Action brought on 18 June 2013 — Commission v Thales développement et coopération
   (Case T-326/13)
   2013/C 298/12
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and B. Conte, acting as Agents, and by N. Coutrelis, lawyer)

      Defendant: Thales développement et coopération SAS (Vélizy-Villacoublay, France)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               order Thales to repay to the European Commission all the sums received under the NEMECEL and DREAMCAR contracts, namely, in relation to the NEMECEL contract, the principal sum of EUR 700 335,66 plus interest outstanding and, in relation to the DREAMCAR contract, the principal sum of EUR 812 821,43 plus interest outstanding;

               —

               order Thales to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Following an investigation by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), the Commission is seeking, by the action brought under Article 272 TFEU, an order from the Court that the defendant repay all of the sums received by the defendant’s former subsidiary, SRTI (SRTI System, Industrial Process Department), a company that became first, SODETEG (Société d’Études Techniques et d’Entreprises Générales SA) then THALESEC (Thales Engineering and Consulting), in connection with two research contracts known as ‘NEMECEL’ and ‘DREAMCAR’.
   The Commission claims that the sums at issue were wrongly paid, following serious financial irregularities, non-compliance with contractual obligations and breaches of fundamental rules of law. The defendant’s subsidiary inter alia declared excessive costs by over-billing for hours not worked.


title: Case T-416/06 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 26 February 2007 — Sumitomo Chemical Agro Europe v Commission (Application for interim measures — Application for suspension of operation — Directive 91/414/EEC — No urgency)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/43

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 26 February 2007 — Sumitomo Chemical Agro Europe v Commission
   (Case T-416/06 R)
   (Application for interim measures - Application for suspension of operation - Directive 91/414/EEC - No urgency)
   (2007/C 95/89)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Sumitomo Chemical Agro Europe SAS (Saint-Didier-au-Mont-d'Or, France) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Parpala and B. Doherty, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for suspension of certain provisions of Commission Directive 2006/132/EC of 11 December 2006 amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include procymidone as an active substance (OJ 2006 L 349, p. 22), and for certain other interim measures.
   Operative part of the order

               (1)

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               (2)

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case C-558/12 P: Appeal brought on 4 December 2012 by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 21 September 2012 in Case T-278/10 Wesergold Getränkeindustrie GmbH & Co KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               2.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/12

         Appeal brought on 4 December 2012 by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 21 September 2012 in Case T-278/10 Wesergold Getränkeindustrie GmbH & Co KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-558/12 P)
   2013/C 32/17
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: A. Pohlmann, lawyer)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Wesergold Getränkeindustrie GmbH & Co. KG, Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the judgment under appeal;

               —

               Order the applicant at first instance to pay the costs of both the proceedings at first instance and the appeal proceedings.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The present appeal challenges the judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2012 in Case T-278/10, by which that Court annulled the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 March 2010 (Case R 770/2009-1).
   In support of its appeal the appellant puts forward three grounds of appeal:

               First, it pleads infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (1) because the General Court annulled the decision of the Board of Appeal due to the latter’s failure to carry out an examination of the enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier marks, although the General Court itself held that the signs at issue are different overall, so that there can, for that reason alone, be no likelihood of confusion.

               Secondly, the appellant submits that there is infringement of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Article 64(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 as those provisions presuppose that Wesergold Getränkeindustrie should have pleaded the enhanced distinctiveness of the opposing marks, which however clearly does not correspond to the facts. Wesergold Getränkeindustrie had already abandoned the argument of enhanced distinctiveness acquired through use in the course of the opposition proceedings, at the latest, however, in the appeal proceedings. The General Court’s assertion to the contrary, that Wesergold Getränkeindustrie still claimed in the appeal proceedings that there was enhanced distinctiveness acquired through use, is an obvious distortion of the facts, which requires no new evidence.

               Thirdly, the judgment is contrary to the settled case-law according to which an error cannot result in the annulment of a decision if that error clearly has no effects on the decision. The issue of enhanced distinctiveness is irrelevant to the decision not only because of the dissimilarity which the General Court expressly found to exist between the signs, but also because Wesergold Getränkeindustrie had already, by the documents submitted in the opposition proceedings, prima facie adduced no evidence of enhanced distinctiveness acquired through use. The General Court should have carried out a short examination as to the validity of that obviously inadequate evidence, which was submitted on 10 March 2008, in order to prevent an unnecessary delay in the proceedings and an unnecessary increase in the costs thereof.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1)


title: Case C-322/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bolzano (Italy) lodged on 13 June 2013 — Ulrike Elfriede Grauel Rüffer v Katerina Pokorná

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bolzano (Italy) lodged on 13 June 2013 — Ulrike Elfriede Grauel Rüffer v Katerina Pokorná
   (Case C-322/13)
   (2013/C 226/16)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Bolzano

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ulrike Elfriede Grauel Rüffer

      Defendant: Katerina Pokorná

      Question referred

   Whether the interpretation of Articles 18 and 21 TFEU precludes the application of provisions of national law, such as those in dispute here, which grant the right [to use] the German language in civil law proceedings pending before the courts in the province of Bolzano only to Italian citizens domiciled in the province of Bolzano, but not to nationals of other EU Member States, whether or not they are domiciled in the province of Bolzano.


13 . 4 . 96           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                              No C 108/ 13
      Removal from the register of Case T-444/93 ( )                       Removal from the register of Case T-107/95 ( )
                          ( 96/C 108/27                                                        ( 96/C 108 /30 )
                (Language of tbe case: Dutch)                                       (Language of tbe case: English)
By order of 13 February 1996 the President of the Fourth
Chamber ( Extended Composition ) of the Court of First               By order of 12 February 1996 the President of the First
Instance of the European Communities ordered the                     Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
removal from the register of Case T-444/93 : Stichting               Communities ordered the removal from the register of
Bedrijfspensioenfonds voor het Glazenwassers- en                     Case T-l 07/95 : Benjamin Laurence Lay v . Council of
Schoonmaakbedrijf ( Fondation Bedrijfspensioenfonds du               the European Union and Commission of the European
Secteur des Entreprises de Lavage de Vitres et de Nettoyage )        Communities .
v . Council of the European Union and Commission of the
European Communities .                                               (') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
(') OJ No C 24 , 31 . 1 . 1992 .
      Removal from the register of Case T-355/94 ( 1 )                     Removal from the register of Case T-l 08/95 (')
                          ( 96/C 108/28 )                                                      ( 96/C 108 /31 )
              (Language of the case: English)                                       (Language of tbe case: English)
By order of 16 February 1 996 the President of the Third             By order of 12 February 1996 the President of the First
Chamber ( Extended Composition ) of the Court of First               Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                     Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
from the register of Case T-355/94 : Norsk Hydro A/S v .
                                                                     T-l 08/95 : Donald George Gage and David John Gage v.
Commission of the European Communities .
                                                                     Council of the European Union and Commission of the
(') OJ No C 380 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .                                   European Communities .
                                                                     (') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
        Removal from the register of Case T-83/95 ( ] )
                          ( 96/C 108/29 )
               (Language of the case: English)                             Removal from the register of Case T-182/95 (')
                                                                                96/C 108/32 )
By order of 29 January 1996 the President of the Fifth
Chamber ( Extended Composition ) of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal                             (Language of the case: French)
from the register of Case T-83/95 : Associaçâo dos
Refinadores de Açucar Portugueses ( ARAP ), Alcantara                By order of 7 February 1996 the President of the Second
Refiniarias — Açúcares SA and RAR Refinarias de Açucar               Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Reunidas SA v . Commission of the European                           Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
Communities .
                                                                     T- 1 82/95 : Champing Qualité France v . Commission of the
                                                                     European Communities .
(>) OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 .
                                                                      (') OJ No C 315 , 25 . 11 . 1995 .


title: Case C-401/08: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 April 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 96/82/EC — Major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances — Article 11(1)(c) — Drawing up of external emergency plans for the measures to be taken outside the establishment — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/19

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 April 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-401/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 96/82/EC - Major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances - Article 11(1)(c) - Drawing up of external emergency plans for the measures to be taken outside the establishment - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   2009/C 141/32
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

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

      Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: E. Reidl, Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 11(1)(c) of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances, as amended by Directive 2003/105/EC (OJ 1997 L 10, p. 13) — Failure to draw up certain external emergency plans for the measures to be taken outside the establishments

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to draw up an external emergency plan for all establishments subject to the provisions of Article 9 of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazard sinvolving dangerous substances, as amended by Directive 2003/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2003, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11(1)(c) of that Directive;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 327, 20.12.2008.


title: Case C-368/00: Action brought on 6 October 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Sweden

text:
C 355/12              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         9.12.2000
Action brought on 5 October 2000 by the Commission                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
of the European Communities against the French Republic
                                                                        1.    declare that by failing to take all necessary measures to
                        (Case C-367/00)                                       ensure that the quality of bathing water conforms to
                                                                              the limit values in Council Directive 76/160/EEC(1) of
                                                                              8 December 1975 concerning the quality of bathing
                        (2000/C 355/22)                                       water and by failing to carry out the required minimum
                                                                              of sampling operations the Kingdom of Sweden has failed
                                                                              to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(1) and 6(1) of that
An action against the French Republic was brought before the                  directive;
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 October
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Marie Wolfcarius, Legal Adviser, acting as               2.    order the Kingdom of Sweden to bear the costs.
Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of the Commission’s Legal Service,
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                               Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             Under the binding provisions of the third paragraph of
                                                                        Article 249 EC and the first paragraph of Article 10 EC,
—     Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and       Member States must take, within the prescribed period, the
      administrative provisions needed in order to comply with          measures necessary to comply with directives addressed to the
      Council Directive 96/48/EC of 23 July 1996 on the                 Member States. In the case of Sweden, Directive 76/160/EEC
      interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail            entered into force on 1 January 1995 as a result of the Act of
      system(1), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its           Accession (Article 2). Sweden was therefore obliged to meet
      obligations under that directive;                                 the requirements of the directive by that date at the latest.
                                                                        However, by the 1998 bathing season, Sweden had not taken
                                                                        all the measures necessary to fulfil its obligations under
—     Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                        Articles 4(1) and 6(1) of the directive.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         (1) OJ 1976 L 031, p. 1.
The pleas in law and main arguments correspond to those in
Case C-366/00(2); the period for transposition laid down by
Article 23 of Directive 96/48/EC expired on 8 April 1999.
(1) OJ L 235, 17.9.1996, p. 6.
(2) OJ C ...
                                                                        Action brought on 10 October 2000 by the Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities against Ireland
                                                                                (Case C-372/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 355/24)
Action brought on 6 October 2000 by the Commission                      An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                      Justice of the European Communities on 10 October 2000 by
                             Sweden                                     the Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                        by Marie Wolfcarius, Legal Adviser, acting as agent, with an
                                                                        address for service at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, a
                        (Case C-368/00)                                 member of the Legal Service of the Commission, Wagner
                                                                        Centre, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.
                        (2000/C 355/23)
                                                                        The Applicant claims that the Court should:
An action against the Kingdom of Sweden was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                 —     declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
on 6 October 2000 by the Commission of the European                           or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Communities, represented by Lena Ström, of its Legal Service,                 Council Directive 96/48/EC of 23 July 1996 on the
acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                 interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail
the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, also of that service,                 system (1), Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                                     that Directive.